Isaca CCAK Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge Exam Practice Test

Reputational business impact refers to the effect on a company’s reputation and public perception following an incident or action. Option A is an example of reputational impact because the public dispute among high-level executives after a breach was reported reflects poorly on the company’s governance and crisis management capabilities. This public display of discord can erode stakeholder trust and confidence, potentially leading to a decline in the company’s market value, customer base, and ability to attract and retain talent.

References = The answer is derived from the understanding of reputational risk and its consequences on businesses, as discussed in various cloud auditing and security resources. Reputational impact is a key consideration in the governance of cloud operations, which is a topic covered in the CCAK curriculum1234.

Regarding cloud service provider agreements and contracts, unless otherwise stated, the provider is responsible only to the cloud customer. This means that the provider has a contractual obligation to deliver the agreed-upon services and meet the service level agreements (SLAs) with the cloud customer, who is the direct payer of the services. The provider is not responsible for any other parties, such as the cloud customer’s clients, end users, or regulators, unless explicitly specified in the contract. The cloud customer is responsible for ensuring that the provider’s services meet their own compliance and security requirements, as well as those of their stakeholders12.

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Cloud security shared responsibility model - NCSC

 When designing a cloud compliance program, the first key stakeholders to identify are the cloud strategy owners. These individuals or groups are responsible for the overarching direction and objectives of the cloud initiatives within the organization. They play a crucial role in aligning the compliance program with the business goals and ensuring that the cloud services are used effectively and in compliance with relevant laws and regulations. By starting with the cloud strategy owners, an organization ensures that the compliance program is built on a foundation that supports the strategic vision and provides clear guidance for all subsequent compliance-related activities and decisions.

References = The information provided is based on general best practices for cloud compliance and stakeholder management. Specific references from the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) are not directly cited here, as my current capabilities do not include accessing or verifying content from external documents or websites. However, the answer aligns with the recognized approach of prioritizing strategic leadership in the initial stages of designing a compliance program.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the regulation that is suitable if health information needs to be protected in the European Union. The GDPR provides the legal framework for the protection of personal data, including health data, and sets out directly applicable rules for the processing of the personal data of individuals1. The GDPR defines health data as personal data related to the physical or mental health of a natural person, including the provision of health care services, which reveal information about his or her health status2. The GDPR applies to any organization that processes health data of individuals who are in the EU, regardless of where the organization is established3.

The other options are not correct. Option B, DPIA, is incorrect because DPIA stands for Data Protection Impact Assessment, which is a process that helps organizations to identify and minimize the data protection risks of a project or activity that involves processing personal data. A DPIA is not a regulation, but a tool or a requirement under the GDPR4. Option C, DPA, is incorrect because DPA stands for Data Protection Authority, which is an independent public authority that supervises, through investigative and corrective powers, the application of the data protection law. A DPA is not a regulation, but an institution or a body under the GDPR5. Option D, HIPAA, is incorrect because HIPAA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which is a US federal law that provides data privacy and security provisions for safeguarding medical information. HIPAA does not apply to the EU, but to the US6. References :=

European Health Data Space1

Article 4 - Definitions | General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2

Article 3 - Territorial scope | General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)3

Data protection impact assessment | European Commission4

Data protection authorities | European Commission5

What is HIPAA? - Definition from WhatIs.com6

Reputation-based trust is a category of trust in cloud computing that relies on the feedback, ratings, reviews, or recommendations of other users or third parties who have used or evaluated the cloud service provider or the cloud service. Reputation-based trust reflects the collective opinion and experience of the cloud community regarding the quality, reliability, security, and performance of the cloud service provider or the cloud service. Reputation-based trust can help potential customers to make informed decisions about choosing a cloud service provider or a cloud service based on the reputation score or ranking of the provider or the service. Reputation-based trust can also motivate cloud service providers to improve their services and maintain their reputation by meeting or exceeding customer expectations.

Reputation-based trust is one of the most common and widely used forms of trust in cloud computing, as it is easy to access and understand. However, reputation-based trust also has some limitations and challenges, such as:

The accuracy and validity of the reputation data may depend on the source, method, and frequency of data collection and aggregation. For example, some reputation data may be outdated, incomplete, biased, manipulated, or falsified by malicious actors or competitors.

The interpretation and comparison of the reputation data may vary depending on the context, criteria, and preferences of the customers. For example, some customers may value different aspects of the cloud service more than others, such as security, availability, cost, or functionality.

The trustworthiness and accountability of the reputation system itself may be questionable. For example, some reputation systems may lack transparency, consistency, or standardization in their design, implementation, or operation.

Therefore, reputation-based trust should not be the only factor for trusting a cloud service provider or a cloud service. Customers should also consider other forms of trust in cloud computing, such as evidence-based trust, policy-based trust, or certification-based trust

The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) provides both cloud-specific security controls (Cloud Controls Matrix, CCM) and benchmarking tools like the CSA STAR program. CSA’s CCM maps industry standards and best practices tailored to cloud security requirements, and STAR provides a transparency and assurance framework for benchmarking security maturity. These resources are widely used and referenced in ISACA’s CCAK for cloud auditing and are integral for organizations seeking structured guidance on cloud security.

=========================

 The CSA STAR Attestation allows for the immediate adoption of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) as additional criteria alongside the AICPA Trust Service Criteria. It also offers the flexibility to update the criteria as technology and market requirements evolve. This is because the CSA STAR Attestation is a combination of SOC 2 and additional cloud security criteria from the CSA CCM, providing guidelines for CPAs to conduct SOC 2 engagements using criteria from both the AICPA and the CSA Cloud Controls Matrix.

References = The information is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance’s resources, which explain that the CSA STAR Attestation integrates SOC 2 with additional criteria from the CCM, allowing for a comprehensive approach to cloud security that aligns with evolving technologies and market needs1.

A centralized risk and controls dashboard is the best option for ensuring a coordinated approach to risk and control processes when duties are split between an organization and its cloud service providers. This dashboard provides a unified view of risk and control status across the organization and the cloud services it utilizes. It enables both parties to monitor and manage risks effectively and ensures that control activities are aligned and consistent. This approach supports proactive risk management and facilitates communication and collaboration between the organization and the cloud service provider.

References = The concept of a centralized risk and controls dashboard is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA, which emphasize the importance of visibility and coordination in cloud risk management. The CCAK materials and the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) provide guidance on establishing such dashboards as a means to manage and mitigate risks in a cloud environment12.

From a compliance perspective, reviewing logs is crucial when evaluating the effectiveness of Infrastructure as Code (IaC) deployments. Logs provide a detailed record of events, changes, and operations that have occurred within the IaC environment. They are essential for tracking the deployment process, identifying issues, and verifying that the infrastructure has been configured and is operating as intended. Logs can also be used to ensure that the IaC deployments comply with security policies and regulatory requirements, making them a vital artifact for assessors.

References = The importance of logs in assessing IaC deployments is supported by cybersecurity best practices, which recommend the use of logs for auditable records of changes to template files and for tracking resource protection1. Additionally, ISACA’s resources on securing IaC highlight the role of logs in providing transparency and enabling infrastructure blueprints to be audited and reviewed for common errors or misconfigurations2.

The most important factor to consider when implementing cloud-related controls is the shared responsibility model. The shared responsibility model is a framework that defines the roles and responsibilities of cloud service providers (CSPs) and cloud customers (CCs) in ensuring the security and compliance of cloud computing environments. The shared responsibility model helps to clarify which security tasks are handled by the CSP and which tasks are handled by the CC, depending on the type of cloud service model (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) and the specific contractual agreements. The shared responsibility model also helps to avoid gaps or overlaps in security controls, and to allocate resources and accountability accordingly12.

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Understanding the Shared Responsibilities Model in Cloud Services - ISACA

Controls mapping found in the Scope Applicability column of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) may help organizations to realize cost savings by avoiding duplication of efforts in the compliance evaluation and for the eventual control design and implementation. The Scope Applicability column is a feature of the CCM that indicates which cloud model type (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) or cloud environment (public, hybrid, private) a control applies to. This feature can help organizations to identify and select the most relevant and appropriate controls for their specific cloud scenario, as well as to map them to multiple industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks. By doing so, organizations can reduce the time, resources, and costs involved in achieving and maintaining compliance with various cloud security requirements123.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option B, by implementing layered security, thus reducing the likelihood of data breaches and the associated costs, is not a valid reason because layered security is a general principle of defense in depth, not a specific feature of the CCM or the Scope Applicability column. Option C, by avoiding the need to hire a cloud security specialist to perform the periodic risk assessment exercise, is not a valid reason because using the CCM or the Scope Applicability column does not eliminate the need for a cloud security specialist or a periodic risk assessment exercise, which are essential for ensuring the effectiveness and adequacy of the cloud security controls. Option D, by avoiding fines for breaching those regulations that impose a controls mapping in order to prove compliance, is not a valid reason because controls mapping is not a mandatory requirement for proving compliance, but a voluntary tool for facilitating compliance. References :=

What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1

Understanding the Cloud Control Matrix | CloudBolt Software2

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

 An organization employing the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) to perform a compliance assessment leverages the Scope Applicability direct mapping to understand which controls encompassed by the CCM may already be partially or fully implemented because of the compliance with other standards. The Scope Applicability direct mapping is a worksheet within the CCM that maps the CCM control specifications to several standards within the ISO/IEC 27000 series, such as ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 27002, ISO/IEC 27017, and ISO/IEC 27018. The mapping helps the organization to identify the commonalities and differences between the CCM and the ISO/IEC standards, and to determine the level of compliance with each standard based on the implementation of the CCM controls. The mapping also helps the organization to avoid duplication of work and to streamline the compliance assessment process.12 References := What you need to know: Transitioning CSA STAR for Cloud Controls Matrix …1; Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA3

A centralized risk and controls dashboard is the best option for ensuring a coordinated approach to risk and control processes when duties are split between an organization and its cloud service providers. This dashboard provides a unified view of risk and control status across the organization and the cloud services it utilizes. It enables both parties to monitor and manage risks effectively and ensures that control activities are aligned and consistent. This approach supports proactive risk management and facilitates communication and collaboration between the organization and the cloud service provider.

References = The concept of a centralized risk and controls dashboard is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA, which emphasize the importance of visibility and coordination in cloud risk management. The CCAK materials and the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) provide guidance on establishing such dashboards as a means to manage and mitigate risks in a cloud environment12.

An independent auditor report is a method that can be used by a cloud service provider (CSP) with a cloud customer that does not want to share security and control information. An independent auditor report is a document that provides assurance on the CSP’s security and control environment, based on an audit conducted by a qualified third-party auditor. The audit can be based on various standards or frameworks, such as ISO 27001, SOC 2, CSA STAR, etc. The independent auditor report can provide the cloud customer with the necessary information to evaluate the CSP’s security and control posture, without disclosing sensitive or proprietary details. The CSP can also use the independent auditor report to demonstrate compliance with relevant regulations or contractual obligations.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 83-84.

ISACA, Cloud Computing Audit Program, 2019, p. 6-7.

Shadow IT refers to the use of IT resources (hardware, software, or cloud services) within an organization without the explicit approval of the IT or governance team. This practice is often flagged in cloud audits due to potential risks of compliance violations and security threats. The CCAK documentation from ISACA highlights the need for visibility and governance over all IT assets, with specific controls listed in the CSA CCM for Cloud Governance (GOV-09). Shadow IT poses risks to data security, compliance, and can introduce vulnerabilities, as systems are not subject to organizational standards and oversight.

=========================

Mapping the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) to other international standards and regulations allows cloud service providers (CSPs) and customers to align their security and compliance measures with a broad range of industry-accepted frameworks. This alignment helps in simplifying compliance processes by ensuring that fulfilling the controls in the CCM also satisfies the requirements of the mapped standards and regulations. It reduces the need for multiple assessments and streamlines the compliance and security efforts, making it more efficient for both CSPs and customers to demonstrate adherence to various regulatory requirements.

References = The benefits of CCM mapping are discussed in resources provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), which detail how the CCM’s controls are aligned with other security standards, regulations, and control frameworks, thus aiding organizations in their compliance and security strategies12.

The optimal and most efficient mechanism to assess the controls that the provider is responsible for is to review third-party audit reports. Third-party audit reports are independent and objective assessments of the provider’s security, compliance, and performance, conducted by qualified and reputable auditors. Third-party audit reports can provide assurance and evidence that the provider meets the industry standards and best practices, as well as the contractual and legal obligations with the SaaS company. Third-party audit reports can also cover a wide range of controls, such as data security, encryption, identity and access management, incident response, disaster recovery, and service level agreements. Some examples of third-party audit reports are ISO 27001 certification, SOC 1/2/3 reports, CSA STAR certification, and FedRAMP authorization123.

Reviewing the provider’s published questionnaires (A) may not be optimal or efficient, as the published questionnaires may not be comprehensive or up-to-date, and may not reflect the actual state of the provider’s controls. The published questionnaires may also be biased or inaccurate, as they are produced by the provider themselves.

Directly auditing the provider © may not be feasible or necessary, as the independent contractor may not have access to the provider’s environment or data, and may not have the authority or expertise to conduct such an audit. The independent contractor should rely on the third-party audit reports and certifications to assess the provider’s compliance with relevant standards and regulations.

Sending a supplier questionnaire to the provider (D) may not be optimal or efficient, as the supplier questionnaire may not cover all the aspects of the provider’s controls, and may not provide sufficient evidence or assurance of the provider’s security maturity. The supplier questionnaire may also take a long time to complete and verify, and may not be consistent with the industry standards and best practices. References :=

How to Evaluate Cloud Service Provider Security (Checklist)

Cloud service review process - Cloud Adoption Framework

How to choose a cloud service provider | Microsoft Azure

The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is a cybersecurity control framework specifically designed for cloud computing environments. A key benefit of using the CCM is that it maps to existing security standards, best practices, and regulations. This mapping allows organizations to ensure that their cloud security posture aligns with industry-recognized frameworks, thereby facilitating compliance and security assurance efforts. The CCM’s comprehensive set of control objectives covers all key aspects of cloud technology and provides guidance on which security controls should be implemented by various actors within the cloud supply chain.

References = This answer is supported by the information provided in the Cloud Controls Matrix documentation and related resources, which highlight the CCM’s alignment with other security standards and its role in helping organizations navigate the complex landscape of cloud security and compliance12.

 The BSI Criteria Catalogue C5 is a document that has been provided by the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) in Germany to support customers in selecting, controlling, and monitoring their cloud service providers (CSPs). The C5 stands for Cloud Computing Compliance Criteria Catalogue and specifies minimum requirements for secure cloud computing. The C5 is primarily intended for professional CSPs, their auditors, and customers of the CSPs. The C5 covers 17 domains and 114 control objectives that address all key aspects of cloud security, such as data protection, identity and access management, encryption and key management, incident response, audit assurance, and compliance. The C5 also maps to other industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks, such as ISO 27001/27002/27017/27018, NIST SP 800-53, CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), COBIT, GDPR, etc. The C5 helps customers to evaluate and compare the security and compliance posture of different CSPs, and to verify that the CSPs meet their contractual obligations and legal requirements12.

References:

BSI - C5 criteria catalogue - Federal Office for Information Security

Germany C5 - Azure Compliance | Microsoft Learn

As an integrity breach. The technical impact of this incident can be categorized as an integrity breach, which refers to the effect of a cloud security incident on the protection of data from unauthorized modification or deletion. Integrity is one of the three security properties of an information system, along with confidentiality and availability.

The incident described in the question involves a cybersecurity criminal finding a vulnerability in an Internet-facing server of an organization, accessing an encrypted file system, and overwriting parts of some files with random data. This is a type of data tampering or corruption attack that affects the accuracy and reliability of the data. The fact that the file system was encrypted does not prevent the integrity breach, as the attacker did not need to decrypt or read the data, but only to overwrite it. The integrity breach can have serious consequences for the organization, such as data loss, data inconsistency, data recovery costs, and loss of trust.

The other options are not correct categories for the technical impact of this incident. Option B, as an availability breach, is incorrect because availability refers to the protection of data and services from disruption or denial, which is not the case in this incident. Option C, as a confidentiality breach, is incorrect because confidentiality refers to the protection of data from unauthorized access or disclosure, which is not the case in this incident. Option D, as a control breach, is incorrect because control refers to the ability to manage or influence the behavior or outcome of a system or process, which is not a security property of an information system. References: =

Top Threats Analysis Methodology - CSA1

Top Threats Analysis Methodology - Cloud Security Alliance2

OWASP Risk Rating Methodology | OWASP Foundation3

OEE Factors: Availability, Performance, and Quality | OEE4

The Effects of Technological Developments on Work and Their 

Heat maps are graphical representations of data that use color-coding to show the relative intensity, frequency, or magnitude of a variable1. Heat maps can be used to visualize the criticality of the cloud services in an organization, along with their dependencies and risks, by mapping the cloud services to different dimensions, such as business impact, availability, security, performance, cost, etc. Heat maps can help auditors identify the most important or vulnerable cloud services, as well as the relationships and trade-offs among them2.

For example, Azure Charts provides heat maps for various aspects of Azure cloud services, such as updates, trends, pillars, areas, geos, categories, etc3. These heat maps can help auditors understand the current state and dynamics of Azure cloud services and compare them across different dimensions4.

Contractual documents of the cloud service provider are the legal agreements that define the terms and conditions of the cloud service, including the roles, responsibilities, and obligations of the parties involved. They may provide some information on the criticality of the cloud services in an organization, but they are not as visual or comprehensive as heat maps. Data security process flow is a diagram that shows the steps and activities involved in protecting data from unauthorized access, use, modification, or disclosure. It may help auditors understand the data security controls and risks of the cloud services in an organization, but it does not cover other aspects of criticality, such as business impact or performance. Turtle diagram is a tool that helps analyze a process by showing its inputs, outputs, resources, criteria, methods, and interactions. It may help auditors understand the process flow and dependencies of the cloud services in an organization, but it does not show the relative importance or risks of each process element.

References:

What is a Heat Map? Definition from WhatIs.com1, section on Heat Map

Cloud Computing Security Considerations | Cyber.gov.au2, section on Cloud service criticality

Azure Charts - Clarity for the Cloud3, section on Heat Maps

Azure Services Overview4, section on Heat Maps

Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist | Trust Center, section on How to use the checklist

Data Security Process Flow - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics, section on Data Security Process Flow

What is a Turtle Diagram? Definition from WhatIs.com, section on Turtle Diagram

 Access controls are an assurance requirement when an organization is migrating to a SaaS provider because they ensure that only authorized users can access the cloud services and data. Access controls also help to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the cloud resources. Access controls are part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain IAM-01: Identity and Access Management Policy and Procedures, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to manage user identities and access to cloud services and data."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 4: A Threat Analysis Methodology for Cloud Using CCM, page 751

 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is a standard that provides guidelines for information security controls applicable to the provision and use of cloud services by providing additional implementation guidance for relevant controls specified in ISO/IEC 27002, as well as additional controls with implementation guidance that specifically relate to cloud services1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is designed to be used by organizations for cloud services that intend to select controls within the process of implementing an information security management system based on ISO/IEC 270011. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization.

ISO/IEC 27002 is a standard that provides a code of practice for information security controls, but it does not provide specific guidance for cloud services. NIST SP 800-146 is a publication that provides an overview of cloud computing, its characteristics, service models, deployment models, and security considerations, but it does not provide a standard for selecting controls for cloud services. CSA CCM is a framework that provides detailed understanding of security concepts and principles that are aligned to the Cloud Security Alliance guidance in 13 domains, but it is not a standard that is based on ISO/IEC 27001. References:

ISO/IEC 27017:2015

[ISO/IEC 27001:2013]

[ISO/IEC 27002:2013]

[NIST SP 800-146]

[CSA CCM]

The approach that encompasses social engineering of staff, bypassing of physical access controls, and penetration testing is typically associated with a Red team. A Red team is designed to simulate real-world attacks to test the effectiveness of security measures. They often use tactics like social engineering and penetration testing to identify vulnerabilities. In contrast, a Blue team is responsible for defending against attacks, a White box approach involves testing with internal knowledge of the system, and a Gray box is a combination of both White box and Black box testing methods.

References = The information aligns with the principles of cloud auditing and security assessments as outlined in the resources provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance, which emphasize the importance of understanding various security testing methodologies to effectively audit cloud systems123.

According to the web search results, the most critical finding of an application security and DevOps audit would be that the application architecture and configurations did not consider security measures. This finding indicates a serious lack of security by design and security by default principles, which are essential for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the application and its data . If the application architecture and configurations are not secure, they could expose the application to various threats and vulnerabilities, such as unauthorized access, data breaches, denial-of-service attacks, injection attacks, cross-site scripting attacks, and others . This finding could also result in non-compliance with relevant security standards and regulations, such as ISO 27001, PCI DSS, GDPR, and others . Therefore, this finding should be addressed with high priority and urgency by implementing appropriate security measures and controls in the application architecture and configurations.

The other options are not as critical as option B. Option A is a moderate finding that indicates a lack of awareness and assessment of the global security standards specific to cloud, such as ISO 27017, ISO 27018, CSA CCM, NIST SP 800-53, and others . This finding could affect the security and compliance of the cloud services used by the application, but it does not directly impact the application itself. Option C is a severe finding that indicates a major incident that occurred at the cloud service provider level, such as a service interruption, breach, or loss of stored data. This finding could affect the availability, confidentiality, and integrity of the application and its data, but it is not caused by the application itself. Option D is a minor finding that indicates a lack of efficiency and consistency in integrating cloud compliance with regulatory requirements. This finding could affect the compliance posture of the application and its data, but it does not directly impact the security or functionality of the application. References:

[Application Security Best Practices - OWASP]

[DevSecOps: What It Is and How to Get Started - ISACA]

[Cloud Security Standards: What to Expect & What to Negotiate - CSA]

[Cloud Computing Security Audit - ISACA]

[Cloud Computing Incident Response - ISACA]

[Cloud Compliance: A Framework for Using Cloud Services While Maintaining Compliance - ISACA]

According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the cloud customer is the entity that retains accountability for the business outcome of the system or the processes that are supported by the cloud service1. The cloud customer is also responsible for ensuring that the cloud service meets the legal, regulatory, and contractual obligations that apply to the customer’s business context1. The cloud customer should also perform due diligence and risk assessment before selecting a cloud service provider, and establish a clear and enforceable contract that defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties1.

The cloud user is the entity that uses the cloud service on behalf of the cloud customer, but it is not necessarily accountable for the compliance of the service1. The cloud service provider is the entity that makes the cloud service available to the cloud customer, but it is not accountable for the compliance of the customer’s business context1. The certification authority (CA) is an entity that issues digital certificates to verify the identity or authenticity of other entities, but it is not accountable for the compliance of the cloud service2. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 10-11.

Certification authority - Wikipedia

From an auditor’s perspective, shadow IT is best described as a risk that jeopardizes business continuity planning. Shadow IT refers to the use of IT-related hardware or software that is not under the control of, or has not been approved by, the organization’s IT department. This can lead to a lack of visibility into the IT infrastructure and potential gaps in security and compliance measures. In the context of business continuity planning, shadow IT can introduce unknown risks and vulnerabilities that are not accounted for in the organization’s disaster recovery and business continuity plans, thereby posing a threat to the organization’s ability to maintain or quickly resume critical functions in the event of a disruption.

References = The answer is based on general knowledge of shadow IT risks and their impact on business continuity planning. Specific references from the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) are not directly cited here, as my current capabilities do not include accessing or verifying content from external documents or websites. However, the concept of shadow IT as a risk to business continuity is a recognized concern in IT governance and auditing practices1234.

The first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework is to identify key risk categories. Key risk categories are the broad areas or domains of cloud security and compliance that may affect the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. Key risk categories may include data security, identity and access management, encryption and key management, incident response, disaster recovery, audit assurance and compliance, etc. Identifying key risk categories helps to scope and focus the cloud risk assessment process, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their relevance and significance. Identifying key risk categories also helps to align and map the risks with the applicable standards, regulations, or frameworks that govern cloud security and compliance12.

Analyzing potential impact and likelihood (A) is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the third step. Analyzing potential impact and likelihood is the process of estimating the consequences or effects of a risk event on the business objectives, operations, processes, or functions (impact), as well as the probability or frequency of a risk event occurring (likelihood). Analyzing potential impact and likelihood helps to measure and quantify the severity or magnitude of the risk event, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their impact and likelihood12.

Establishing cloud risk profile (B) is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the second step. Establishing cloud risk profile is the process of defining and documenting the expected level of risk that an organization is willing to accept or tolerate in relation to its cloud services (risk appetite), as well as the actual level of risk that an organization faces or encounters in relation to its cloud services (risk exposure). Establishing cloud risk profile helps to determine and communicate the objectives, expectations, and responsibilities of cloud security and compliance, as well as to align and integrate them with the business strategy and goals12.

Evaluating and documenting the risks © is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the fourth step. Evaluating and documenting the risks is the process of assessing and reporting on the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls or actions that are implemented or applied to prevent, avoid, transfer, or accept a risk event (risk treatment), as well as identifying and addressing any gaps or issues that may arise (risk monitoring). Evaluating and documenting the risks helps to ensure that the actual level of risk is aligned with the desired level of risk, as well as to update and improve the risk management strategy and plan12. References :=

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

Cloud Risk—10 Principles and a Framework for Assessment - ISACA

The Architectural Relevance feature within the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) allows for the filtering of security controls based on relevant delivery models like SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS. This feature is crucial because it aligns the security controls with the specific cloud service models being used, ensuring that the controls are applicable and effective for the particular cloud architecture in place.

References = The CCM’s focus on delivery models is supported by the CSA Enterprise Architecture Working Group, which helps define the organizational relevance of each control, including the alignment with different cloud service models1.

 In situations where Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud service providers do not permit on-premise audits, auditors must adapt by utilizing alternative sources of data to evaluate the customer’s controls. This can include using automated tools, third-party certifications, and other forms of assurance provided by the service provider. This approach ensures that the auditor can still assess the security posture and compliance of the cloud services without direct physical access to the provider’s infrastructure.

References = The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) provides guidelines on effective cloud auditing practices, including the use of alternative data sources when on-premise audits are not feasible1. Additionally, discussions on the Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) highlight the importance of adapting audit strategies to the cloud environment2.

Access controls are the aspect of Software as a Service (SaaS) functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Access controls refer to the methods and techniques that verify the identity and access rights of users or devices that access or use the SaaS application and its data. Access controls may include credentials, policies, roles, permissions, tokens, multifactor authentication, single sign-on, etc. The cloud customer is responsible for ensuring that only authorized and legitimate users or devices can access or use the SaaS application and its data, as well as for protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of their data. The cloud customer should also monitor and audit the access and usage of the SaaS application and its data, as well as any incidents or issues that may affect them123.

Source code reviews (A) are not the aspect of SaaS functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Source code reviews refer to the processes and practices that examine the source code of software applications or systems to identify errors, bugs, vulnerabilities, or inefficiencies that may affect their quality, functionality, or security. Source code reviews are mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the software applications or systems that deliver SaaS services. The cloud customer has no access or control over these aspects123.

Patching (B) is not the aspect of SaaS functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Patching refers to the processes and practices that ensure the security, reliability, and performance of the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. Patching involves the use of updates or fixes to address vulnerabilities, bugs, errors, or exploits that may compromise or affect the functionality of the cloud components. Patching is mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. The cloud customer has limited or no access or control over these aspects123.

Vulnerability management (D) is not the aspect of SaaS functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Vulnerability management refers to the processes and practices that identify, assess, treat, monitor, and report on the risks that affect the security posture of an organization or a domain. Vulnerability management involves the use of tools or techniques to scan, analyze, prioritize, remediate, or mitigate vulnerabilities that may expose an organization or a domain to threats or attacks. Vulnerability management is mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. The cloud customer has limited or no access or control over these aspects123. References :=

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Providers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Customers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

 A dot release of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) indicates a technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is smaller than 10% compared to the previous full release. A dot release is a minor update to the CCM that reflects the feedback from the cloud security community and the changes in the cloud technology landscape. A dot release does not change the domain structure or the overall scope of the CCM, but rather improves the clarity, accuracy, and relevance of the existing controls. A dot release is denoted by a decimal number after the major version number, such as CCM v4.1 or CCM v4.2. The current version of the CCM is v4.0, which was released in October 20211.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. a revision of the CCM domain structure: A revision of the CCM domain structure is a major change that affects the organization and categorization of the controls into different domains. A revision of the CCM domain structure requires a full release, not a dot release, and is denoted by an integer number, such as CCM v3 or CCM v42.

C. the introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls: The introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls is an additional feature that enhances the usability and applicability of the CCM. The introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls does not require a dot release or a full release, but rather an update to the mapping table that shows the relationship between the CCM controls and other industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks3.

D. technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release: A technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release is a significant change that affects the content and scope of the CCM. A technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release requires a full release, not a dot release, and is denoted by an integer number, such as CCM v3 or CCM v42.

References:

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

The CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) V4: Raising the cloud security bar

Cloud Security Alliance Releases New Cloud Controls Matrix Auditing Guidelines

The primary purpose of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) for the CSA STAR program is to provide global, accredited, and trusted certification of the cloud service provider. According to the CSA website1, the OCF is an industry initiative to allow global, trusted independent evaluation of cloud providers. It is a program for flexible, incremental and multi-layered cloud provider certification and/or attestation according to the Cloud Security Alliance’s industry leading security guidance and control framework. The OCF aims to address the gaps within the IT ecosystem that are inhibiting market adoption of secure and reliable cloud services. The OCF also integrates with popular third-party assessment and attestation statements developed within the public accounting community to avoid duplication of effort and cost. The OCF manages the foundation that runs and monitors the CSA STAR Certification program, which is an assurance framework that enables cloud service providers to embed cloud-specific security controls. The STAR Certification program has three levels of assurance, each based on a different type of audit or assessment: Level 1: Self-Assessment, Level 2: Third-Party Audit, and Level 3: Continuous Auditing. The OCF also oversees the CSA STAR Registry, which is a publicly accessible repository that documents the security controls provided by various cloud computing offerings2. The OCF helps consumers to evaluate and compare their providers’ resilience, data protection, privacy capabilities, and service portability. It also helps providers to demonstrate their compliance with industry standards and best practices.

References:

Open Certification Framework Working Group | CSA

STAR | CSA

Impact analysis is the aspect of risk management that involves identifying the potential reputational and financial harm when an incident occurs. Impact analysis is the process of estimating the consequences or effects of a risk event on the business objectives, operations, processes, or functions. Impact analysis helps to measure and quantify the severity or magnitude of the risk event, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their impact. Impact analysis also helps to determine the appropriate level of response and mitigation for each risk event, as well as to allocate the necessary resources and budget for risk management123.

Likelihood (A) is not the aspect of risk management that involves identifying the potential reputational and financial harm when an incident occurs. Likelihood is the aspect of risk management that involves estimating the probability or frequency of a risk event occurring. Likelihood is the process of assessing and evaluating the factors or causes that may trigger or influence a risk event, such as threats, vulnerabilities, assumptions, uncertainties, etc. Likelihood helps to measure and quantify the chance or possibility of a risk event happening, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their likelihood123.

Mitigation (B) is not the aspect of risk management that involves identifying the potential reputational and financial harm when an incident occurs. Mitigation is the aspect of risk management that involves reducing or minimizing the likelihood or impact of a risk event. Mitigation is the process of implementing and applying controls or actions that can prevent, avoid, transfer, or accept a risk event, depending on the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization. Mitigation helps to improve and enhance the security and resilience of the organization against potential risks, as well as to optimize the cost and benefit of risk management123.

Residual risk © is not the aspect of risk management that involves identifying the potential reputational and financial harm when an incident occurs. Residual risk is the aspect of risk management that involves measuring and monitoring the remaining or leftover risk after mitigation. Residual risk is the process of evaluating and reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of the mitigation controls or actions, as well as identifying and addressing any gaps or issues that may arise. Residual risk helps to ensure that the actual level of risk is aligned with the desired level of risk, as well as to update and improve the risk management strategy and plan123. References :=

Risk Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide | SafetyCulture

Risk Assessment and Analysis Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative - ISACA

Risk Management Process - Risk Management | Risk Assessment | Risk …

 The greatest risk associated with hidden interdependencies between cloud services is the lack of visibility over the cloud service providers’ supply chain. Hidden interdependencies are the complex and often unknown relationships and dependencies between different cloud services, providers, sub-providers, and customers. These interdependencies can create challenges and risks for the security, availability, performance, and compliance of the cloud services and data. For example, a failure or breach in one cloud service can affect other cloud services that depend on it, or a change in one cloud provider’s policy or contract can impact other cloud providers or customers that rely on it.12

The lack of visibility over the cloud service providers’ supply chain means that the customers do not have enough information or control over how their cloud services and data are delivered, managed, and protected by the providers and their sub-providers. This can expose the customers to various threats and vulnerabilities, such as data breaches, data loss, service outages, compliance violations, legal disputes, or contractual conflicts. The customers may also face difficulties in monitoring, auditing, or verifying the security and compliance status of their cloud services and data across the supply chain. Therefore, it is important for the customers to understand the hidden interdependencies between cloud services and to establish clear and transparent agreements with their cloud providers and sub-providers regarding their roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations.3

References := How to identify and map service dependencies - Gremlin1; Mitigate Risk for Data Center Network Migration - Cisco2; Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.03; HIDDEN INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL …

An example of integrity technical impact refers to an event where the accuracy or trustworthiness of data is compromised. Option D, where a hacker uses a stolen administrator identity to alter the discount percentage in the product database, directly affects the integrity of the data. This action leads to unauthorized changes to data, which is a clear violation of data integrity. In contrast, options A, B, and C describe breaches of confidentiality, availability, and security, respectively, but do not directly impact the integrity of the data itself123.

References = The concept of data integrity in cloud computing is extensively covered in the literature, including the importance of protecting against unauthorized data alteration to maintain the trustworthiness and accuracy of data throughout its lifecycle123.

 A contract containing the phrase “You automatically consent to these terms by using or logging into the service to which they pertain” is establishing a contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is a type of legal agreement that involves one party setting the terms and conditions and the other party having no choice but to accept or reject them without bargaining. These contracts are often used in situations where one party has more power or resources than the other, such as in online services, insurance, leases, or consumer credit. These contracts may be unfair or unclear to the weaker party and may be challenged in court for unconscionability or ambiguity12.

References:

adhesion contract | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

What is a contract of adhesion? A complete guide - PandaDoc

The CSA STAR registry is a publicly accessible registry that documents the security and privacy controls provided by popular cloud computing offerings1 The registry is designed for users of cloud services to assess their cloud providers’ security and compliance posture, including the regulations, standards, and frameworks they adhere to1 The registry also promotes industry transparency and reduces complexity and costs for both providers and customers2

The provider can direct all customer inquiries to the information in the CSA STAR registry, as this would be the best recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. By publishing to the registry, the provider can show current and potential customers their security and compliance posture, without having to fill out multiple customer questionnaires or requests for proposal (RFPs)2 The provider can also leverage the different levels of assurance available in the registry, such as self-assessment, third-party audit, or certification, to demonstrate their security maturity and trustworthiness1 The provider can also benefit from the CSA Trusted Cloud Providers program, which recognizes providers that have fulfilled additional training and volunteer requirements with CSA, demonstrating their commitment to cloud security competency and industry best practices3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because the provider can schedule a call with each customer is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Scheduling a call with each customer would be time-consuming, inefficient, and impractical, especially if the provider receives multiple inquiries and RFPs every month. Scheduling a call would also not guarantee that the customer would be satisfied with the provider’s security and compliance posture, as they may still request additional information or evidence. Scheduling a call would also not help the provider differentiate themselves from other providers in the market, as they may not be able to showcase their security maturity and trustworthiness effectively.

Option B is not correct because the provider can share all security reports with customers to streamline the process is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Sharing all security reports with customers may not be feasible, as some reports may contain sensitive or confidential information that should not be disclosed to external parties. Sharing all security reports may also not be desirable, as some reports may be outdated, incomplete, or inconsistent, which could undermine the provider’s credibility and reputation. Sharing all security reports may also not be effective, as some customers may not have the expertise or resources to review and understand them properly.

Option C is not correct because the provider can answer each customer individually is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Answering each customer individually would be tedious, repetitive, and costly, as the provider would have to provide similar or identical information to different customers over and over again. Answering each customer individually would also not ensure that the provider’s security and compliance posture is consistent and accurate, as they may make mistakes or omissions in their responses. Answering each customer individually would also not help the provider stand out from other providers in the market, as they may not be able to highlight their security achievements and certifications.

References: 1: STAR | CSA 2: Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing 3: STAR Registry | CSA

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the final decision to include a material finding in a cloud audit report should be made by the cloud auditor1. A material finding is a significant error or risk in the cloud service that could affect the achievement of the audit objectives or the cloud customer’s business outcomes. The cloud auditor is responsible for identifying, evaluating, and reporting the material findings based on the audit criteria, methodology, and evidence. The cloud auditor should also communicate the material findings to the auditee and other relevant stakeholders, and obtain their feedback and responses.

The other options are not correct. Option A is incorrect, as the auditee’s senior management is not in charge of the audit report, but rather the subject of the audit. The auditee’s senior management should provide their perspective and action plans for the material findings, but they cannot decide whether to include or exclude them from the report. Option B is incorrect, as the organization’s CEO is not involved in the audit process, but rather the ultimate recipient of the audit report. The organization’s CEO should review and act upon the audit report, but they cannot influence the content of the report. Option D is incorrect, as the organization’s CISO is not an independent party, but rather a stakeholder of the audit. The organization’s CISO should support and collaborate with the cloud auditor, but they cannot make the final decision on the material findings. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 19-20.

The auditor’s next course of action should be to review the contract and DR capability of the cloud service provider. The contract should specify the roles and responsibilities of both parties regarding disaster recovery, as well as the service level agreements (SLAs) and recovery time objectives (RTOs) for the critical application. The DR capability should demonstrate that the cloud service provider has a plan that is aligned with the organization’s requirements and expectations, and that it is tested annually and validated by independent auditors. The auditor should also verify that the organization has a process to monitor and review the cloud service provider’s performance and compliance with the contract and SLAs.

Planning an audit of the provider (B) may not be feasible or necessary, as the auditor may not have access to the provider’s environment or data, and may not have the authority or expertise to conduct such an audit. The auditor should rely on the provider’s audit reports and certifications to assess their compliance with relevant standards and regulations.

Reviewing the security white paper of the provider © may not be sufficient or relevant, as the security white paper may not cover the specific aspects of disaster recovery for the critical application, or may not reflect the current state of the provider’s security controls and practices. The security white paper may also be biased or outdated, as it is produced by the provider themselves.

Reviewing the provider’s audit reports (D) may be helpful, but not enough, as the audit reports may not address the specific requirements and expectations of the organization for disaster recovery, or may not cover the latest changes or incidents that may affect the provider’s DR capability. The audit reports may also have limitations or qualifications that may affect their reliability or validity. References :=

Audit a Disaster Recovery Plan | AlertFind

ISACA Introduces New Audit Programs for Business Continuity/Disaster …

How to Maintain and Test a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan

Attribute-based access control (ABAC) is a cloud-native solution that uses attributes (such as user role, location, or device) to dynamically control access. This method is highly flexible for the cloud, where user attributes and environmental factors vary, unlike traditional enterprise security models. ISACA’s CCAK emphasizes ABAC in cloud environments for its adaptability to multi-tenant architectures and complex access control requirements, aligning with CCM controls in Domain IAM-12 (Identity and Access Management) for flexible, secure access mechanisms.

=========================

External attestation and certification audit reports are considered the best method to demonstrate assurance in cloud services to multiple customers because they provide an independent verification of the cloud service provider’s controls and practices. These reports are conducted by third-party auditors and offer a level of transparency and trust that cannot be achieved through self-assessments or internal documents. They help ensure that the cloud provider meets industry standards and regulatory requirements, which is crucial for customers to assess the risk and compliance posture of their cloud service providers.

References = The importance of external attestation and certification audit reports is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA, which state that the CCAK credential prepares IT and security professionals to ensure that the right controls are in place and to mitigate the risks and costs of audit management and penalties for non-compliance1.

A SOC 2 Type 2 report is the most comprehensive type of report for cloud service providers, as it evaluates the design and operating effectiveness of a service organization’s controls over a period of time. This type of report is specifically intended to meet the needs of customers who need assurance about the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy of the data processed by the service provider1234.

References = The importance of SOC 2 Type 2 reports for cloud service providers is discussed in various resources, including those provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance, which highlight the need for such reports to ensure the operating effectiveness of controls5678.

 The CSA STAR registry is a publicly accessible registry that documents the security and privacy controls provided by popular cloud computing offerings. The registry is based on the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), which is a framework of cloud-specific security best practices, and the GDPR Code of Conduct, which is a set of privacy principles for cloud service providers. The registry allows cloud customers to assess the security and compliance posture of cloud service providers, as well as to compare different providers based on their level of assurance. The registry also reduces the complexity and cost of filling out multiple customer questionnaires and requests for proposal (RFPs). Therefore, the best recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden is to direct all customer inquiries to the information in the CSA STAR registry, which can demonstrate the provider’s transparency, trustworthiness, and adherence to industry standards. The provider can also encourage customers to use the Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ), which is a standardized set of questions based on the CCM, to evaluate the provider’s security controls. Alternatively, the provider can pursue higher levels of assurance, such as third-party audits or continuous monitoring, to further validate their security and privacy practices and increase customer confidence.

References:

STAR Registry | CSA

STAR | CSA

CSA Security Trust Assurance and Risk (STAR) Registry Reaches Notable …

Why CSA STAR Is Important for Cloud Service Providers - A-LIGN

It is most important for the auditor to be aware that the client organization has a clear understanding of the provider’s suppliers. The provider’s suppliers are the third-party entities that provide services or products to the provider, such as infrastructure, software, hardware, or support. The provider’s suppliers may have a significant impact on the quality, security, reliability, and performance of the cloud services that the provider delivers to the client organization. Therefore, the auditor should ensure that the client organization knows who the provider’s suppliers are, what services or products they provide, what risks they pose, and what contractual or regulatory obligations they have123.

The other options are not correct. Option A, the client organization does not need to worry about the provider’s suppliers, as this is the provider’s responsibility, is incorrect because the client organization cannot rely solely on the provider to manage its suppliers. The client organization has to perform due diligence and oversight on the provider’s suppliers, as they may affect the client organization’s own security, compliance, and business objectives12. Option B, the suppliers are accountable for the provider’s service that they are providing, is incorrect because the suppliers are not directly accountable to the client organization, but to the provider. The provider is ultimately accountable to the client organization for its service delivery and performance12. Option C, the client organization and provider are both responsible for the provider’s suppliers, is incorrect because the responsibility for the provider’s suppliers depends on the shared responsibility model, which defines how the security and compliance tasks and obligations are divided between the provider and the client organization. The shared responsibility model may vary depending on the type and level of cloud service that the provider offers12. References :=

Cloud Computing: Auditing Challenges - ISACA1

Cloud Computing: Audit Considerations - ISACA2

Top 16 Cloud Computing Companies & Service Providers 2023 - Datamation

A detective control is a type of internal control that seeks to uncover problems in a company’s processes once they have occurred1. Examples of detective controls include physical inventory checks, reviews of account reports and reconciliations, as well as assessments of current controls1. Detective controls use platform telemetry to detect misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and potentially malicious activity in the cloud environment2.

In a Software as a Service (SaaS) service provider, privileged access monitoring is a detective control that can help identify unauthorized or suspicious activities by users who have elevated permissions to access or modify cloud resources, data, or configurations. Privileged access monitoring can involve logging, auditing, alerting, and reporting on the actions performed by privileged users3. This can help detect security incidents, compliance violations, or operational errors in a timely manner and enable appropriate responses.

Data encryption, incident management, and network segmentation are examples of preventive controls, which are designed to prevent problems from occurring in the first place. Data encryption protects the confidentiality and integrity of data by transforming it into an unreadable format that can only be decrypted with a valid key1. Incident management is a process that aims to restore normal service operations as quickly as possible after a disruption or an adverse event4. Network segmentation divides a network into smaller subnetworks that have different access levels and security policies, reducing the attack surface and limiting the impact of a breach1.

References:

Detective controls - SaaS Lens - docs.aws.amazon.com3, section on Privileged access monitoring

Detective controls | Cloud Architecture Center | Google Cloud2, section on Detective controls

Internal control: how do preventive and detective controls work?4, section on SaaS Solutions to Support Internal Control

Detective Control: Definition, Examples, Vs. Preventive Control1, section on What Is a Detective Control?

 For a European manufacturing corporation migrating to the cloud, the best control framework would be the Cloud Security Alliance’s (CSA) General Data Protection Regulation Code of Conduct (GDPR CoC). This framework is specifically designed to help cloud service providers and users comply with EU data protection requirements. As GDPR is a critical regulation in Europe that imposes strict data protection rules, adhering to a framework that aligns with these regulations is essential for any organization operating within the EU.

References = The CSA’s GDPR CoC is recognized as a robust framework for ensuring compliance with GDPR, which is a key consideration for European organizations migrating to the cloud. This is supported by the resources provided by the Cloud Security Alliance and ISACA in their Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) materials1.

Market share and geolocation are primarily related to the business perspective because they are key factors in understanding a company’s position and reach in the market. Market share provides insight into the competitive landscape and a company’s relative success in acquiring customers compared to its competitors. Geolocation, on the other hand, helps businesses target and personalize their services to customers based on location, which can be crucial for marketing strategies and understanding consumer behavior.

References = The relevance of market share and geolocation to the business perspective is highlighted in resources provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA). These resources discuss the impact of geolocation technology on business practices and the importance of understanding market dynamics for strategic decision-making12.

It is most important for an auditor to be aware that an inventory of assets within a cloud environment is fundamental for the security management program. An inventory of assets is a list of all the hardware, software, data, and services that are owned, used, or managed by an organization in the cloud. An inventory of assets helps the organization to identify, classify, and prioritize its cloud resources and to implement appropriate security controls and policies to protect them. An inventory of assets also helps the organization to comply with relevant regulations, standards, and contracts that may apply to its cloud environment.12

An auditor should be aware of the importance of an inventory of assets in the cloud because it provides a baseline for assessing the security posture and compliance status of the organization’s cloud environment. An auditor can use the inventory of assets to verify that the organization has a clear and accurate understanding of its cloud resources and their characteristics, such as location, ownership, configuration, dependencies, vulnerabilities, and risks. An auditor can also use the inventory of assets to evaluate whether the organization has implemented adequate security measures and processes to protect its cloud resources from threats and incidents. An auditor can also use the inventory of assets to identify any gaps or weaknesses in the organization’s security management program and to provide recommendations for improvement.34

References := Why is IT Asset Inventory Management Critical? - Fresh Security1; Use asset inventory to manage your resources’ security posture2; The importance of asset inventory in cybersecurity3; The Importance Of Asset Inventory In Cyber Security And CMDB - Visore4

Implementing service level agreements (SLAs) around changes to baseline configurations is the most important way to manage risk from cloud vendors who might accidentally introduce unnecessary risk to an organization by adding new features to their solutions. A service level agreement (SLA) is a contract or a part of a contract that defines the expected level of service, performance, and quality that a cloud vendor will provide to an organization. An SLA can also specify the roles and responsibilities, the communication channels, the escalation procedures, and the penalties or remedies for non-compliance12.

Implementing SLAs around changes to baseline configurations can help an organization to manage the risk from cloud vendors who might add new features to their solutions without proper testing, validation, or notification. Baseline configurations are the standard or reference settings for a system or a network that are used to measure and maintain its security and performance. Changes to baseline configurations can introduce new vulnerabilities, errors, or incompatibilities that can affect the functionality, availability, or security of the system or network34. Therefore, an SLA can help an organization to ensure that the cloud vendor follows a change management process that includes steps such as risk assessment, impact analysis, approval, documentation, notification, testing, and rollback. An SLA can also help an organization to monitor and verify the changes made by the cloud vendor and to report and resolve any issues or incidents that may arise from them.

The other options are not the most effective ways to manage the risk from cloud vendors who might add new features to their solutions. Option A, deploying new features using cloud orchestration tools, is not a good way to manage the risk because cloud orchestration tools are used to automate and coordinate the deployment and management of complex cloud services and resources. Cloud orchestration tools do not address the issue of whether the new features added by the cloud vendor are necessary, secure, or compatible with the organization’s system or network. Option B, performing prior due diligence of the vendor, is not a good way to manage the risk because prior due diligence is a process that involves evaluating and verifying the background, reputation, capabilities, and compliance of a potential cloud vendor before entering into a contract with them. Prior due diligence does not address the issue of how the cloud vendor will handle changes to their solutions after the contract is signed. Option C, establishing responsibility in the vendor contract, is not a good way to manage the risk because establishing responsibility in the vendor contract is a process that involves defining and assigning the roles and obligations of both parties in relation to the cloud service delivery and performance. Establishing responsibility in the vendor contract does not address the issue of how the cloud vendor will communicate and coordinate with the organization about changes to their solutions. References :=

What is an SLA? Best practices for service-level agreements | CIO1

Service Level Agreements - Cloud Security Alliance2

What is Baseline Configuration? - Definition from Techopedia3

Baseline Configuration - Cloud Security Alliance4

Change Management - Cloud Security Alliance

Incident Response - Cloud Security Alliance

What is Cloud Orchestration? - Definition from Techopedia

Due Diligence - Cloud Security Alliance

Contractual Security Requirements - Cloud Security Alliance

During the cloud service provider evaluation process, benchmark controls lists BEST help identify baseline configuration requirements. Benchmark controls lists are standardized sets of security and compliance controls that are applicable to different cloud service models, deployment models, and industry sectors1. They provide a common framework and language for assessing and comparing the security posture and capabilities of cloud service providers2. They also help cloud customers to define their own security and compliance requirements and expectations based on best practices and industry standards3.

Some examples of benchmark controls lists are:

The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), which is a comprehensive list of 133 control objectives that cover 16 domains of cloud security4.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-53, which is a catalog of 325 security and privacy controls for federal information systems and organizations, including cloud-based systems5.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) / International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 27017, which is a code of practice that provides guidance on 121 information security controls for cloud services based on ISO/IEC 270026.

Vendor requirements, product benchmarks, and contract terms and conditions are not the best sources for identifying baseline configuration requirements. Vendor requirements are the specifications and expectations that the cloud service provider has for its customers, such as minimum hardware, software, network, or support requirements7. Product benchmarks are the measurements and comparisons of the performance, quality, or features of different cloud services or products8. Contract terms and conditions are the legal agreements that define the rights, obligations, and responsibilities of the parties involved in a cloud service contract9. These sources may provide some information on the configuration requirements, but they are not as comprehensive, standardized, or objective as benchmark controls lists.

References:

CSA Security Guidance for Cloud Computing | CSA1, section on Identify necessary security and compliance requirements

Evaluation Criteria for Cloud Infrastructure as a Service - Gartner2, section on Security Controls

Checklist: Cloud Services Provider Evaluation Criteria | Synoptek3, section on Security

Cloud Controls Matrix | CSA4, section on Overview

NIST Special Publication 800-53 - NIST Pages5, section on Abstract

ISO/IEC 27017:2015(en), Information technology — Security techniques …6, section on Scope

What is vendor management? Definition from WhatIs.com7, section on Vendor management

What is Benchmarking? Definition from WhatIs.com8, section on Benchmarking

What is Terms and Conditions? Definition from WhatIs.com9, section on Terms and Conditions

An external audit is an appropriate tool and technique to support a customer’s verification of the cloud service provider’s claims regarding its responsibilities according to the shared responsibility model. An external audit is an independent and objective examination of the cloud service provider’s policies, procedures, controls, and performance by a qualified third-party auditor. An external audit can provide assurance that the cloud service provider is fulfilling its obligations and meeting the customer’s expectations in terms of security, compliance, availability, reliability, and quality. An external audit can also identify any gaps or weaknesses in the cloud service provider’s security posture and suggest recommendations for improvement.

An external audit can be based on various standards, frameworks, and regulations that are relevant to the cloud service provider’s industry and domain. For example, some common external audits for cloud service providers are:

ISO/IEC 27001: This is an international standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS). An ISMS is a systematic approach to managing sensitive information so that it remains secure. An ISO/IEC 27001 certification demonstrates that the cloud service provider has implemented a comprehensive and effective ISMS that covers all aspects of information security, including risk assessment, policy development, asset management, access control, incident management, business continuity, and compliance.1

SOC 2: This is an attestation report that evaluates the cloud service provider’s security controls based on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Trust Services Criteria. The Trust Services Criteria are a set of principles and criteria for evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of controls that affect the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy of a system. A SOC 2 report provides assurance that the cloud service provider has implemented adequate controls to protect the customer’s data and systems.2

CSA STAR: This is a program for flexible, incremental, and multi-layered cloud provider certification and/or attestation according to the Cloud Security Alliance’s industry leading security guidance and control framework. The CSA STAR program consists of three levels of assurance: Level 1: Self-Assessment, Level 2: Third-Party Audit, and Level 3: Continuous Auditing. The CSA STAR program aims to provide transparency, assurance, and trust in the cloud ecosystem by enabling customers to assess and compare the security and compliance posture of cloud service providers.3

The other options listed are not suitable for supporting a customer’s verification of the cloud service provider’s claims regarding its responsibilities according to the shared responsibility model. An internal audit is an audit conducted by the cloud service provider itself or by an internal auditor hired by the cloud service provider. An internal audit may not be as independent or objective as an external audit, and it may not provide sufficient evidence or credibility to the customer. A contractual agreement is a legal document that defines the roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations of both the cloud service provider and the customer. A contractual agreement may specify the terms and conditions for service delivery, performance, availability, security, compliance, data protection, incident response, dispute resolution, liability, and termination. However, a contractual agreement alone does not verify or validate whether the cloud service provider is actually fulfilling its claims or meeting its contractual obligations. A security assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the security risks and vulnerabilities of a system or an organization. A security assessment may involve various methods such as vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, threat modeling, or risk analysis. A security assessment may provide useful information about the current state of security of a system or an organization, but it may not cover all aspects of the shared responsibility model or provide assurance that the cloud service provider is complying with its responsibilities on an ongoing basis.

The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) by the Cloud Security Alliance provides a comprehensive control framework that aligns with industry standards, regulations, and best practices, offering a structured approach for cloud security and compliance management. This mapping capability makes it highly valuable in cloud audits as noted in the CCAK, which relies on CCM for its comprehensive applicability in regulatory compliance and security (referenced in CSA CCM V4 documentation and ISACA CCAK content).