Restrictive areas are those that contain sensitive or critical assets, systems, or information that require additional protection from unauthorized access or tampering. Access control is the process of granting or denying access to these areas based on predefined policies, rules, and criteria. An additional authentication factor is a method of verifying the identity or authorization of a user or device that is used in conjunction with another factor, such as a password, a token, or a biometric feature. Additional authentication factors enhance the security and reliability of access control by reducing the risk of impersonation, compromise, or theft of credentials.

The example that best represents the set of restrictive areas that require an additional authentication factor for access control is A. Datacenters; telecom rooms; server rooms; exterior building entrance. These areas contain vital infrastructure, equipment, and data that are essential for the organization’s operations, performance, and security. Unauthorized access to these areas could result in significant damage, disruption, or loss of data, services, or resources. Therefore, these areas should be protected by multiple layers of access control, including physical and logical barriers, as well as additional authentication factors, such as smart cards, biometrics, or one-time passwords.

The other examples are less likely to represent the set of restrictive areas that require an additional authentication factor for access control, because they either contain less sensitive or critical assets, systems, or information, or they are more accessible or visible to the public or other authorized users. For example:

• B. Datacenters; telecom rooms; security operations centers; loading docks: While datacenters, telecom rooms, and security operations centers are restrictive areas that require an additional authentication factor for access control, loading docks are not. Loading docks are typically open to external vendors, suppliers, or delivery personnel, and may not contain any sensitive or critical assets, systems, or information. Therefore, loading docks may not require an additional authentication factor for access control, but rather a basic verification of identity or authorization, such as a badge, a signature, or a receipt.
• C. Telecom rooms; parking garage; security operations centers; exterior building entrance: While telecom rooms, security operations centers, and exterior building entrance are restrictive areas that require an additional authentication factor for access control, parking garage is not. Parking garage is usually accessible to employees, visitors, or customers, and may not contain any sensitive or critical assets, systems, or information. Therefore, parking garage may not require an additional authentication factor for access control, but rather a simple validation of access rights, such as a ticket, a code, or a gate.
• D. Exterior building entrance; datacenters; telecom rooms; printer rooms: While exterior building entrance, datacenters, and telecom rooms are restrictive areas that require an additional authentication factor for access control, printer rooms are not. Printer rooms are generally available to all employees or authorized users, and may not contain any sensitive or critical assets, systems, or information. Therefore, printer rooms may not require an additional authentication factor for access control, but rather a standard authentication factor, such as a password, a PIN, or a fingerprint.

References:

• Shared Assessments CTPRP Study Guide, page 46, section 4.3.1: Access Control
• Access Controls Over Third-Party Applications, section: Vendor Access
• Controlling Third-Party Access Risk, section: Best Practices for Controlling Third-Party Vendor Risks, bullet point: Implementing supporting processes and controls that define and enforce access policies for third-party privileged users.

Remote wipe is a security feature that allows an administrator or a user to remotely erase all the data and settings on a device in case it is lost or stolen. This prevents unauthorized access to sensitive information and reduces the risk of data breaches. Remote wipe is typically used for company-owned devices, as it ensures that no company data remains on the device after it is lost or stolen. Remote wipe also restores the device to its factory settings, making it unusable for the thief or finder. Remote wipe can be performed through various methods, such as using a mobile device management (MDM) solution, a cloud service, or a built-in feature of the device’s operating system. References:

• 1: How to protect your company from data breaches caused by lost or stolen devices
• 2: BYOD vs Company-Owned Devices: How to Maintain Security
• 3: Lost or Stolen Business Device? Here’s What to do Next

Due diligence is the process of evaluating the risks and opportunities associated with a potential or existing third-party vendor. Due diligence can vary in scope and depth depending on the level of risk that the vendor poses to the organization. Lower risk vendors are those that have minimal impact on the organization’s operations, reputation, or compliance, and that do not handle sensitive or confidential data or systems. For lower risk vendors, conducting due diligence may involve accepting the service provider’s self-assessment questionnaire responses as sufficient evidence of their capabilities, performance, and compliance. A self-assessment questionnaire is a tool that allows the vendor to provide information about their organization, services, processes, controls, and policies. The organization can use the questionnaire to verify the vendor’s identity, qualifications, references, and certifications, and to assess the vendor’s alignment with the organization’s standards and expectations. Accepting the vendor’s self-assessment questionnaire responses as the primary source of due diligence can save time and resources for the organization, and can also demonstrate trust and confidence in the vendor. However, the organization should also ensure that the questionnaire is comprehensive, relevant, and updated, and that the vendor’s responses are accurate, complete, and consistent. The organization should also reserve the right to request additional information or documentation from the vendor if needed, and to conduct periodic reviews or audits of the vendor’s performance and compliance.

The other options do not best describe conducting due diligence of a lower risk vendor, because they either involve more extensive or rigorous methods of due diligence, or they are not directly related to due diligence. Preparing reports to management regarding the status of third party risk management and remediation activities is an important part of monitoring and managing the vendor relationship, but it is not a due diligence activity per se. Reviewing a service provider’s self-assessment questionnaire and external audit report(s) is a more thorough way of conducting due diligence, but it may not be necessary or feasible for lower risk vendors, especially if the external audit report(s) are not readily available or relevant. Requesting and filing a service provider’s external audit report(s) for future reference is a good practice for maintaining documentation and evidence of due diligence, but it is not a due diligence activity itself.

References:

• Third Party Risk Management (TPRM) | Shared Assessments
• Vendor Due Diligence Strategy Guide and Checklist | Prevalent
• Vendor due diligence: a practical guide and checklist

This statement does not reflect current practice in addressing fourth party risk or subcontracting risk because it is not sufficient to rely on external audit reports alone. Outsourcers should also perform their own due diligence and monitoring of the subcontractors, as well as ensure that the third party has a robust TPRM program in place. External audit reports may not cover all the relevant aspects of subcontracting risk, such as data security, compliance, performance, and quality. Moreover, external audit reports may not be timely, accurate, or consistent, and may not reflect the current state of the subcontractor’s operations. Therefore, outsourcers should adopt a more proactive and comprehensive approach to managing subcontracting risk, rather than relying on external audit reports. References:

• Shared Assessments Program, page 13: “Outsourcers should not rely solely on external audit reports to address subcontracting risk. Outsourcers should also inspect the vendor’s TPRM program and require evidence of the assessments of subcontractors.”
• Five Best Practices to Manage and Control Third-Party Risk, page 3: "Restricting privileged accounts

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) programs are not based on default tool configuration, but on the specific needs and risks of the organization. DLP programs should be tailored to the data types, locations, flows, and users that are relevant to the business. DLP programs should also align with the regulatory and contractual obligations, as well as the data risk appetite, of the organization. Default tool configuration may not adequately address these factors and may result in either over-blocking or under-protecting data. Therefore, statement C is false about DLP programs. References:

• 1: The Best Data Loss Prevention Software Tools - Comparitech
• 2: Build a Successful Data Loss Prevention Program in 5 Steps - Gartner
• 3: What is data loss prevention (DLP)? | Microsoft Security

Notification obligations in incident response are the legal or contractual duties to inform relevant parties about a security breach or incident that affects their data or systems. These obligations may vary depending on the type, scope, and impact of the incident, as well as the jurisdiction, industry, and contractual agreements involved. The factors that are most likely to trigger notification obligations are:

• Regulatory requirements: Different laws and regulations may impose different notification obligations on organizations that experience or cause a security incident. For example, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires data controllers to notify the supervisory authority within 72 hours of becoming aware of a personal data breach, and to notify the affected data subjects without undue delay if the breach poses a high risk to their rights and freedoms1. Similarly, the Computer-Security Incident Notification Rule requires banks and their service providers to notify their primary federal regulator as soon as possible, but no later than 36 hours, after a computer-security incident that materially disrupts, degrades, or impairs their operations, services, or customers2.
• Data classification or sensitivity: The type and sensitivity of the data involved in a security incident may also affect the notification obligations. For example, if the data contains personally identifiable information (PII), health information, financial information, or other confidential or sensitive information, the organization may have to notify the data owners, regulators, law enforcement, or other stakeholders about the incident and the potential risks to their privacy or security3. The data classification or sensitivity may also determine the content and timing of the notification, as well as the appropriate communication channels to use.
• Contractual terms: The contractual agreements between an organization and its third-party vendors or service providers may also specify the notification obligations in case of a security incident. For example, the contract may define the roles and responsibilities of each party, the notification procedures and timelines, the information to be shared, the remediation actions to be taken, and the penalties or liabilities for breach of contract. The contractual terms may also reflect the regulatory requirements or industry standards that apply to the organization or the third party.

The factor that is least likely to trigger notification obligations is:

• Encryption of data: Encryption of data is a security measure that protects the data from unauthorized access, modification, or disclosure. Encryption of data may reduce the impact or severity of a security incident, as it may prevent or limit the exposure of the data to malicious actors. However, encryption of data does not eliminate the notification obligations, as the organization still has to assess the nature and extent of the incident, and determine whether the encryption was effective or compromised. Moreover, encryption of data may not be sufficient to protect the data from other types of threats, such as deletion, corruption, or ransomware. Therefore, encryption of data is not a factor that influences the notification obligations in incident response.

References:

• 1: GDPR Article 33: Notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority
• 2: Computer-Security Incident Notification Rule
• 3: Third-Party Incident Management (TPIM): How to Balance IRPs with Third Parties
• : [Improving Third-Party Incident Response]
• : [Third-Party Incident Response Playbook]
• : [Does Encryption Protect You From a Data Breach?]

Application version control standards for software release updates are not part of the IT change management approval process, but rather a technical aspect of the software development lifecycle. The IT change management approval process is a formal and structured way of evaluating, authorizing and scheduling changes to IT systems and infrastructure, based on predefined criteria and roles. The IT change management approval process typically includes the following components123:

• A change request form that captures the details, rationale, impact, risk and benefits of the proposed change
• A change approval board (CAB) or other authorized approvers who review and approve or reject the change request based on the business case, feasibility and alignment with the organization’s objectives and policies
• A documented audit trail for all changes, especially emergency changes, that records the date, time, reason, approver and outcome of each change
• A defined roles and responsibilities matrix that clarifies the expectations and accountabilities of each stakeholder involved in the change management process, such as the change manager, change owner, change coordinator, change implementer and change requester
• A set of guidelines that restrict the approval of changes to only authorized personnel who have the appropriate knowledge, skills and authority to make decisions about the changes References:
• 1: Change Approval Process in ITIL Change Management
• 2: Guide to the IT Change Requests Approval Process
• 3: Overview of the change management approval process