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

 According to the GDPR, personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (data subject). The GDPR does not consider the volume of data records as a relevant factor for classifying personal data, but rather the nature and context of the data. The GDPR requires data controllers and processors to apply appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk of processing personal data, taking into account factors such as the state of the art, the costs of implementation, the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing, and the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons. Therefore, the volume of data records is not a decisive attribute for classifying personal data, but rather an indicator of the potential impact of a data breach or misuse.

The other factors listed in the question are more important attributes for classifying personal data, as they relate to the identification, protection, and rights of the data subjects. The data subject category that identifies the data owner refers to the type of natural person whose personal data is processed, such as customers, employees, patients, students, etc. This factor is important for determining the purpose and legal basis of processing, as well as the data subject’s rights and expectations1. The sensitivity level of specific data elements that could identify an individual refers to the degree of harm or discrimination that could result from the disclosure or misuse of such data, such as racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, genetic or biometric data, health data, sex life or sexual orientation, or criminal convictions or offenses2. The GDPR imposes stricter rules and obligations for the processing of such special categories of personal data, as they pose a higher risk to the data subject’s fundamental rights and freedoms. The assignment of a confidentiality level that differentiates public or non-public information refers to the degree of access and disclosure that is permitted or required for the personal data, depending on the data subject’s consent, the legitimate interests of the data controller or processor, or the applicable laws and regulations1. The GDPR requires data controllers and processors to implement data protection by design and by default, meaning that they should only process the personal data that is necessary for the specific purpose and limit the access to those who need to know.

References:

• 4: 5 Types of Data Classification (With Examples) | Indeed.com
• 7: Special Categories of Personal Data - GDPR EU
• [8]: Data Classification for GDPR Explained [Full Breakdown] - DataGrail

Application whitelisting is a security technique that allows only authorized applications to run on a device or network, preventing malware or unauthorized software from executing. While this can be a useful security measure, it is not directly related to remote access risk evaluation, which focuses on the security of the connection and the access rights of the remote users. The other options are more relevant to remote access risk evaluation, as they help to monitor, control, and audit the remote access activities and prevent unauthorized or malicious access. References:

• 1: Secure Remote Access: Risks, Auditing, and Best Practices
• 2: 5 Common Vulnerabilities Associated With Remote Access

 An IT asset management program is a set of processes and tools that help an organization manage its IT assets throughout their lifecycle, from acquisition to disposal. An IT asset management program should include the following components1234:

• Maintaining inventories of systems, connections, and software applications: This component involves creating and updating a comprehensive and accurate list of all IT assets owned or used by the organization, including their location, ownership, configuration, and status. This helps the organization optimize the use of its IT resources, reduce costs, and ensure compliance with licensing and regulatory requirements.
• Tracking and monitoring availability of vendor updates and any timelines for end of support: This component involves keeping track of the latest updates, patches, and security fixes provided by the vendors of the IT assets, as well as the end-of-life dates and support options for the assets. This helps the organization maintain the security, performance, and functionality of its IT assets, and plan for timely replacement or migration of obsolete or unsupported assets.
• Identifying and tracking adherence to IT asset end-of-life policy: This component involves defining and implementing a policy for retiring and disposing of IT assets that are no longer needed, useful, or supported by the organization. This helps the organization reduce risks, costs, and environmental impacts associated with IT asset disposal, and ensure compliance with data protection and disposal regulations.

Defining application security standards for internally developed applications is not a component of an IT asset management program, but rather a component of an application development and security program. An application development and security program is a set of processes and tools that help an organization design, develop, test, deploy, and maintain secure and reliable applications, whether they are internally developed or acquired from external sources. An application development and security program should include the following components5 :

• Defining application security standards for internally developed applications: This component involves establishing and enforcing a set of security requirements and best practices for the applications developed by the organization, such as secure coding, testing, and deployment methodologies, security controls, and vulnerability management. This helps the organization ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its applications and data, and prevent or mitigate security breaches and incidents.
• Performing application security assessments for externally acquired applications: This component involves conducting security reviews and audits of the applications acquired from external sources, such as vendors, partners, or open source communities, before integrating them into the organization’s IT environment. This helps the organization identify and address any security risks, gaps, or weaknesses in the applications, and ensure compatibility and compliance with the organization’s security policies and standards.

References:

• ITAM: The ultimate guide to IT asset management
• IT asset management: 10 best practices for success
• Asset Management: The Five Core Components
• The Fundamentals of Asset Management
• Application Development and Security Program
• Application Security Best Practices

Continuous monitoring is a process of collecting and analyzing data on the performance and security of third-party vendors on an ongoing basis. Continuous monitoring helps to identify and mitigate potential risks, such as data breaches, credential exposures, insider fraud/theft, and other cyber incidents, that may affect the organization and its customers. Continuous monitoring can use various techniques, such as monitoring surface, vulnerabilities, passive and active indicators of compromise, and business intelligence.

Passive and active indicators of compromise are examples of continuous monitoring techniques that track the signs of malicious activity or compromise on the third-party vendor’s systems or networks. Passive indicators of compromise are data sources that do not require direct interaction with the target, such as threat intelligence feeds, dark web monitoring, or external scanning. Active indicators of compromise are data sources that require direct interaction with the target, such as penetration testing, malware analysis, or incident response. Both passive and active indicators of compromise can provide valuable information on the current state and potential threats of the third-party vendor’s environment.

The other options are not examples of continuous monitoring techniques that track breach, credential exposure and insider fraud/theft alerts. Monitoring surface is a technique that measures the size and complexity of the third-party vendor’s attack surface, such as the number and type of internet-facing assets, domains, and services. Vulnerabilities are a technique that identifies the weaknesses or flaws in the third-party vendor’s systems or applications that can be exploited by attackers, such as outdated software, misconfigurations, or unpatched bugs. Business intelligence is a technique that analyzes the business performance and reputation of the third-party vendor, such as financial stability, customer satisfaction, or regulatory compliance. References:

• Guide: Continuous Monitoring for Third-Party Risk
• Continuous Monitoring - Third Party Risk Management
• 12 Ongoing Monitoring Best Practices for Third-Party Risk Management

Vendor inventory is a list of all the third-party vendors that an organization engages with, along with relevant information about their products, services, contracts, and risks. Vendor inventory is a crucial tool for vendor risk management, as it helps an organization identify, assess, monitor, and mitigate the potential risks associated with its vendors. Vendor inventory also helps an organization prioritize its vendor oversight activities, allocate its resources efficiently, and comply with its regulatory obligations12.

One of the key steps in creating and maintaining a vendor inventory is to assign a risk rating and a vendor classification to each vendor, based on various attributes that reflect the level of risk and criticality they pose to the organization. The risk rating and vendor classification help an organization determine the frequency and depth of its vendor due diligence, review, and audit processes, as well as the appropriate controls and remediation actions to implement3 .

Some of the common attributes used to assign risk rating and vendor classification are :

• Type of data accessed, processed, or retained: This attribute indicates the sensitivity and confidentiality of the data that the vendor handles on behalf of the organization, such as personally identifiable information (PII), protected health information (PHI), financial information, intellectual property, etc. The more sensitive and confidential the data, the higher the risk rating and vendor classification, as the vendor must comply with strict security and privacy standards and regulations, and the organization must protect itself from data breaches, leaks, or losses.
• Type of systems accessed: This attribute indicates the access level and privileges that the vendor has to the organization’s systems, such as networks, servers, databases, applications, etc. The more access and privileges the vendor has, the higher the risk rating and vendor classification, as the vendor must adhere to the organization’s policies and procedures, and the organization must safeguard itself from unauthorized or malicious activities, such as cyberattacks, sabotage, or espionage.
• Type of network connectivity: This attribute indicates the mode and frequency of the data transmission and communication between the vendor and the organization, such as online, offline, real-time, batch, etc. The more network connectivity the vendor has, the higher the risk rating and vendor classification, as the vendor must ensure the availability, integrity, and reliability of the data, and the organization must prevent data interception, modification, or disruption.

The type of contract addendum is NOT an attribute used to assign risk rating and vendor classification, as it is not directly related to the risk or criticality of the vendor. The type of contract addendum is a legal document that modifies or supplements the original contract between the vendor and the organization, such as adding or deleting terms, clauses, or provisions. The type of contract addendum may reflect the changes or updates in the vendor relationship, such as scope, duration, price, service level, etc., but it does not indicate the level of risk or impact that the vendor has on the organization. Therefore, the type of contract addendum is not a relevant factor for vendor risk assessment and management . References:

• 1: Vendor Inventory - Shared Assessments
• 2: Vendor Inventory Management: A Guide to Third-Party Risk Management
• 3: Vendor Risk Rating - Shared Assessments
• : [Vendor Risk Rating: How to Rate Your Vendors | Smartsheet]
• : [Vendor Classification - Shared Assessments]
• : [Vendor Tiering: How to Classify Your Vendors | Smartsheet]
• : Contract Addendum - Shared Assessments
• : What is a Contract Addendum? | Definition and Examples | Imperva

The purpose of internal communications and information sharing using TPRM performance metrics is to inform and align the organization’s stakeholders on the status, progress, and outcomes of the TPRM program. This includes communicating the results of vendor assessments, the compliance level of the organization’s policies and procedures, and the periodic reporting to management and other relevant parties. However, documenting the corrective action plan between external parties is not an internal communication, but rather an external one. This is because the corrective action plan is a formal agreement between the organization and the vendor to address and resolve the issues identified in the assessment. Therefore, this statement is not an example of the purpose of internal communications and information sharing using TPRM performance metrics. References:

• 15 KPIs & Metrics to Measure the Success of Your TPRM Program
• Third-party risk management metrics: Best practices to enhance your program
• 3 Best Third-Party Risk Management Software Solutions (2024)

 Performing due diligence during third party risk assessments is a process of verifying and validating the information provided by the third parties, as well as identifying and assessing any potential risks or issues that may arise from the relationship. Due diligence methods may vary depending on the type, scope, and complexity of the third party engagement, but they generally involve the following steps123:

• Interviewing subject matter experts or control owners: This method involves engaging with the relevant stakeholders from both the organization and the third party, such as business owners, project managers, legal counsel, compliance officers, security analysts, etc. The purpose of the interviews is to gather more information about the third party’s capabilities, processes, policies, performance, and challenges, as well as to clarify any questions or concerns that may arise from the questionnaire or other sources. The interviews can also help to establish rapport and trust between the parties, and to identify any gaps or discrepancies in the information provided.
• Reviewing compliance artifacts: This method involves examining the evidence or documentation that supports the third party’s claims or assertions, such as certifications, accreditations, audit reports, policies, procedures, contracts, SLAs, etc. The purpose of the review is to verify the accuracy, completeness, and validity of the artifacts, as well as to assess the level of compliance with the applicable standards, regulations, and best practices. The review can also help to identify any areas of improvement or weakness in the third party’s controls or processes.
• Validating controls: This method involves testing or inspecting the actual implementation and effectiveness of the third party’s controls or processes, such as security measures, quality assurance, data protection, incident response, etc. The purpose of the validation is to confirm that the controls are operating as intended and expected, and that they are sufficient to mitigate the risks or issues identified in the assessment. The validation can also help to identify any vulnerabilities or gaps in the third party’s controls or processes.

The other options are not as comprehensive or accurate as the methods described above, as they may not cover all the aspects or dimensions of the third party risk assessment, or they may rely on incomplete or outdated information. Inspecting physical and environmental security controls by conducting a facility tour is only one part of the validation method, and it may not be applicable or feasible for all types of third parties, such as cloud service providers or remote workers. Reviewing status of findings from the questionnaire and defining remediation plans is more of a follow-up or monitoring activity, rather than a due diligence method, as it assumes that the questionnaire has already been completed and analyzed. Reviewing and assessing only the obligations that are specifically defined in the contract is a narrow and limited approach, as it may not capture the full scope or complexity of the third party relationship, or the dynamic and evolving nature of the risks or issues involved. References:

• Third Party Due Diligence – a vital but challenging process
• The guide to risk based third party due diligence - VinciWorks
• Third Party Risk Assessment – Checklist & Best Practices

The Cardholder Data Environment (CDE) is the part of the network that stores, processes, or transmits cardholder data or sensitive authentication data, as well as any connected or security-impacting systems123. The CDE is subject to the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), which is a set of requirements and guidelines for ensuring the security and compliance of payment card transactions123. The PCI DSS defines various artifacts that are reviewed when assessing the CDE, such as:

• The Data Security Standards (DSS) framework: This is the document that specifies the 12 high-level requirements and the corresponding sub-requirements and testing procedures for PCI DSS compliance123. The DSS framework should be used to scope the assessment, meaning to identify and document the systems and components that are in scope for PCI DSS, as well as the applicable requirements and controls for each system and component123. Therefore, option A is a true statement regarding artifacts reviewed when assessing the CDE.
• The Report on Compliance (ROC): This is the report that provides the assessment results completed by a qualified security assessor (QSA) that includes an onsite audit of the CDE123. The ROC is a detailed and comprehensive document that validates the organization’s compliance status and identifies any gaps or deficiencies that need to be remediated123. The ROC is required for merchants and service providers that process more than 6 million transactions annually, or that have suffered a breach or been compromised in the past year123. Therefore, option B is a true statement regarding artifacts reviewed when assessing the CDE.
• The Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ): This is a questionnaire that provides a validation tool for merchants and service providers that are not required to submit a ROC123. The SAQ is a self-assessment tool that allows the organization to evaluate its own compliance status and identify any gaps or deficiencies that need to be remediated123. The SAQ does not provide independent testing of controls, as it is based on the organization’s self-reported answers and evidence123. Therefore, option C is a false statement regarding artifacts reviewed when assessing the CDE.
• A System and Organization Controls (SOC) report: This is a report that provides an independent audit of the internal controls and processes of a service organization, such as a cloud provider, a data center, or a payment processor45. The SOC report is not specific to PCI DSS, but rather to other standards and frameworks, such as SOC 1 (based on SSAE 18), SOC 2 (based on Trust Services Criteria), or SOC 3 (based on SOC 2)45. A SOC report is not sufficient to demonstrate PCI DSS compliance, as it may not cover all the requirements and controls of the PCI DSS, or it may not address the same location or scope as the CDE123. Therefore, option D is a false statement regarding artifacts reviewed when assessing the CDE.

References: The following resources support the verified answer and explanation:

• 1: PCI DSS Quick Reference Guide
• 2: PCI DSS FAQs
• 3: PCI DSS Glossary
• 4: What is a SOC report?
• 5: SOC Reports: What They Are, and Why They Matter

Incident response and incident notification are two related but distinct processes that organizations should follow when dealing with security incidents. Incident response is the process of identifying, containing, analyzing, eradicating, and recovering from security incidents, while incident notification is the process of communicating the relevant information about the incident to the appropriate internal and external stakeholders, such as senior management, regulators, customers, and media12.

Not all security incidents are security breaches, which are defined as unauthorized access to or disclosure of sensitive or confidential information that could result in harm to the organization or individuals3. A security incident may become a security breach based on the analysis of the impact, scope, and severity of the incident, as well as the applicable legal and regulatory requirements. When a security breach is confirmed or suspected, the organization should trigger its incident notification or crisis communication process, which should include the following elements:

• A clear definition of roles and responsibilities for notification and communication
• A list of internal and external stakeholders who need to be notified and their contact information
• A set of predefined templates and messages for different types of incidents and audiences
• A communication strategy and timeline that aligns with the incident response plan and the business continuity plan
• A feedback mechanism to monitor and measure the effectiveness of the communication and adjust as needed

Incident notification and communication are critical for managing the reputation, trust, and compliance of the organization, as well as for mitigating the potential legal, financial, and operational consequences of a security breach. References:

• 1: Incident Response Plan: Frameworks and Steps
• 2: A Guide to Incident Response Plans, Playbooks, and Policy
• 3: What is Incident Response? Plan and Steps
• : Incident Response and Breach Notification
• : Incident Response Communication: Best Practices
• : The Importance of Incident Response Communication

Infrastructure as a service (IaaS) is a cloud deployment model that provides users with access to virtualized hardware resources, such as servers, storage, and network devices. Users can install and run their own operating systems and applications on the cloud infrastructure, and have full control over the configuration and management of the hardware equipment. IaaS is suitable for organizations that need high scalability, flexibility, and customization of their cloud environment. IaaS is different from other cloud deployment models, such as function as a service (FaaS), platform as a service (PaaS), and software as a service (SaaS), which provide users with higher-level services and abstract away the underlying hardware details. References:

• Cloud Infrastructure: 4 Key Components and Deployment Models
• Cloud Deployment Models - GeeksforGeeks
• On-Premises Cloud Deployment Model: Organization-Owned Hardware Explained

 Security vulnerabilities and security defects are not synonymous, but rather different concepts that relate to the security of software products or services. A security vulnerability is a weakness or flaw in the software that can be exploited by an attacker to compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the system or data12. A security defect is a mistake or error in the software code that causes the software to behave in an unexpected or incorrect way34. A security defect may or may not lead to a security vulnerability, depending on the context and impact of the defect. For example, a security defect that causes a buffer overflow may result in a security vulnerability that allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the system. However, a security defect that causes a spelling error in the user interface may not pose a security risk at all.

Security vulnerabilities and security defects have different causes, consequences, and solutions. Security vulnerabilities are often caused by design flaws, logic errors, or insufficient security controls in the software12. Security defects are often caused by poor coding practices, lack of testing, or human mistakes in the software development process34. Security vulnerabilities can have severe consequences for the software users, providers, and stakeholders, such as data breaches, identity theft, fraud, or sabotage12. Security defects can have various consequences for the software functionality, performance, or usability, such as crashes, glitches, or bugs34. Security vulnerabilities require proactive and reactive measures to prevent, detect, and mitigate the potential attacks, such as security testing, patching, monitoring, and incident response12. Security defects require corrective and preventive measures to identify, resolve, and avoid the errors, such as code review, debugging, refactoring, and quality assurance34.

Therefore, the statement that security vulnerabilities and security defects are synonymous is FALSE. They are distinct but related aspects of software security that require different approaches and techniques to address them. References: 1: What is a Software Vulnerability? | Veracode 2: Software Security: differences between vulnerabilities and Defects 3: What is a Software Defect? - Definition from Techopedia 4: Are vulnerabilities discovered and resolved like other defects? - Springer

Indemnification is a contractual obligation by which one party agrees to compensate another party for any losses or damages that may arise from a specified event or circumstance. Mutual indemnification means that both parties agree to indemnify each other for certain losses or damages, such as those caused by a breach of contract, negligence, or violation of law. Mutual indemnification can enable each party to share the amount of information security risk, as it can provide a mechanism for allocating the responsibility and liability for any security incidents or breaches that may affect either party or their customers. Mutual indemnification can also incentivize each party to maintain adequate security controls and practices, as well as to cooperate and communicate effectively in the event of a security incident or breach.

The other options are not contract clauses that enable each party to share the amount of information security risk, because:

• A. Limitation of liability is a contract clause that limits the amount or type of damages that one party can claim from another party in the event of a breach of contract or other legal action. Limitation of liability does not enable each party to share the amount of information security risk, as it can reduce or cap the liability of one party, but not necessarily distribute or balance the risk between both parties.
• B. Cyber insurance is a type of insurance policy that covers the costs and losses resulting from cyberattacks, data breaches, or other cyber incidents. Cyber insurance does not enable each party to share the amount of information security risk, as it can transfer or mitigate the risk to a third-party insurer, but not necessarily allocate or share the risk between both parties.
• C. Force majeure is a contract clause that excuses one or both parties from performing their contractual obligations in the event of an unforeseen or unavoidable event or circumstance that is beyond their control, such as a natural disaster, war, or pandemic. Force majeure does not enable each party to share the amount of information security risk, as it can suspend or terminate the contract in the event of a force majeure event, but not necessarily distribute or balance the risk between both parties.

References:

• Shared Assessments CTPRP Study Guide, page 62, section 5.2.2: Contractual Terms
• Third-Party Risk Management: Vendor Contract Terms and Conditions, section: Indemnification
• Cybersecurity risks from third party vendors: PwC, section: Contractual terms and conditions
• [Third-Party Risk Management: The 3rd Party Ecosystem: How to Manage the Risk While Keeping the Benefit], section: Contractual Terms and Conditions

Terms for return or destruction of data should be defined and agreed upon during contract negotiation, as this is the phase where the organization and the third party establish the expectations, obligations, and responsibilities for the relationship, including the handling of data. According to the Shared Assessments CTPRP Study Guide, contract negotiation is the phase where "the organization and the third party negotiate and execute a contract that clearly defines the expectations and responsibilities of both parties, including the scope of work, service level agreements, performance measures, reporting requirements, compliance obligations, security and privacy controls, incident response procedures, dispute resolution mechanisms, termination rights, and other relevant terms and conditions."1 One of the key contractual terms that should be addressed is the return or destruction of data, which specifies how the third party will return or dispose of the organization’s data at the end of the relationship, or upon request, in a secure and timely manner. This term is important for ensuring the organization’s data protection, confidentiality, and compliance, as well as reducing the risk of data breaches, leaks, or misuse by the third party or unauthorized parties.

The other phases of the TPRM lifecycle are not the best choices for defining and agreeing upon terms for return or destruction of data, because:

• B. At third party selection and initial due diligence: This is the phase where the organization identifies, evaluates, and selects the third party that best meets its needs, objectives, and risk appetite. This phase involves conducting due diligence on the third party’s capabilities, qualifications, reputation, performance, security, and compliance, as well as assessing the inherent risk of the relationship. While this phase is important for screening and choosing the right third party, it does not involve defining and agreeing upon the specific terms and conditions of the relationship, such as the return or destruction of data, which are usually done in the contract negotiation phase.
• C. When deploying ongoing monitoring: This is the phase where the organization monitors and reviews the third party’s performance, service delivery, risk management, and compliance on a regular basis, as well as identifies and addresses any issues, gaps, or changes that may arise during the relationship. This phase involves collecting and analyzing data and information from various sources, such as reports, audits, assessments, surveys, feedback, incidents, and metrics, as well as communicating and collaborating with the third party to ensure alignment and improvement. While this phase is important for ensuring the quality and security of the relationship, it does not involve defining and agreeing upon the terms and conditions of the relationship, such as the return or destruction of data, which are usually done in the contract negotiation phase.
• D. At termination and exit: This is the phase where the organization terminates and exits the relationship with the third party, either by mutual agreement, expiration of contract, breach of contract, or other reasons. This phase involves executing the termination and exit plan, which may include notifying the third party, transferring or discontinuing the services, settling the financial obligations, returning or destroying the data, revoking the access rights, and conducting a post-termination review. While this phase is important for ensuring a smooth and secure transition and closure of the relationship, it does not involve defining and agreeing upon the terms and conditions of the relationship, such as the return or destruction of data, which are usually done in the contract negotiation phase.

References:

• 1: Shared Assessments CTPRP Study Guide, page 59, section 5.1: TPRM Lifecycle
• : Third-Party Risk Management: Vendor Contract Terms and Conditions, section: Data Ownership, Return and Destruction
• : [Third-Party Risk Management: The 3rd Party Ecosystem: How to Manage the Risk While Keeping the Benefit], section: Contract Negotiation
• : [Third-Party Risk Management: The 3rd Party Ecosystem: How to Manage the Risk While Keeping the Benefit], section: Termination and Exit

Data anonymization is the process of removing or altering any information that can be used to identify an individual from a data set. This technique provides the strongest assurance that data does not identify an individual, as it makes it impossible or extremely difficult to link the data back to the original source. Data anonymization can be achieved by various methods, such as generalization, suppression, perturbation, or pseudonymization12. Data anonymization is often used for privacy protection, compliance with data protection regulations, and data sharing purposes3. References:

• 1: Data Security: Definition, Importance, and Types | Fortinet
• 2: Data Security Best Practices: Top 10 Data Protection Methods - Ekran System
• 3: Data anonymization - Wikipedia

Software as a Service (SaaS) is a cloud deployment model that provides users with access to software applications over the internet, without requiring them to install, maintain, or update the software on their own devices. SaaS is primarily focused on the application layer, as it delivers the complete functionality of the software to the end users, while abstracting away the underlying infrastructure, platform, and middleware layers. SaaS providers are responsible for managing the servers, databases, networks, security, and scalability of the software, as well as ensuring its availability, performance, and compliance. SaaS users only pay for the software usage, usually on a subscription or pay-per-use basis, and can access the software from any device and location, as long as they have an internet connection. Some examples of SaaS applications are Gmail, Salesforce, Dropbox, and Netflix. References:

• Shared Assessments CTPRP Study Guide, page 15, section 2.2.2
• Cloud Computing Deployment Models and Architectures, section on Cloud Computing Models
• Layered Architecture of Cloud, section on Application Layer

This statement is false because assessing risk impact does not require an analysis of prior events, frequency of occurrence, and external trends. These factors are relevant for assessing risk likelihood or probability, not impact. Risk impact is the potential consequence or damage that a risk event may cause to the organization or its stakeholders. Risk impact can be measured qualitatively (e.g., high, medium, low) or quantitatively (e.g., monetary value, percentage of revenue, number of customers affected). To assess risk impact, the organization needs to consider the nature and scope of the risk, the potential harm or loss, and the sensitivity or tolerance of the organization or its stakeholders to the risk. References:

• How to Manage and Measure Third-Party Risk, OneTrust Blog
• Third-party risk, Deloitte
• Assessing Risks in Third Parties, ERM - Enterprise Risk Management Initiative

The frequency for conducting a vendor reassessment is not necessarily defined by regulatory obligations, but rather by the risk rating and criticality of the vendor, as well as the changes in the vendor’s environment, performance, and controls. Regulatory obligations may provide some guidance or minimum requirements for vendor reassessment, but they are not the sole determinant of the reassessment frequency. According to the Shared Assessments Program Tools User Guide, "The frequency of reassessment should be based on the risk rating and criticality of the vendor, as well as any changes in the vendor’s environment, performance, or controls. Regulatory guidance may also influence the frequency of reassessment."1 Similarly, the CTPRP Study Guide states, "The frequency of reassessment should be based on the risk rating and criticality of the vendor, as well as any changes in the vendor’s environment, performance, or controls. Regulatory guidance may also influence the frequency of reassessment."2

References:

• Shared Assessments Program Tools User Guide
• CTPRP Study Guide

Hybrid cloud is the cloud deployment model that is primarily used for load balancing. Load balancing is the process of distributing workloads and network traffic across multiple servers or resources to optimize performance, reliability, and scalability1. Load balancing can help prevent overloading or underutilizing any single server or resource, as well as improve fault tolerance and availability. Hybrid cloud is a mix of two or more different deployment models, such as public cloud, private cloud, or community cloud2. Hybrid cloud allows organizations to leverage the benefits of both public and private clouds, such as cost efficiency, scalability, security, and control3. Hybrid cloud can also enable load balancing across different cloud environments, depending on the demand, cost, and performance requirements of each workload. For example, an organization can use a private cloud for sensitive or mission-critical applications that require high security and performance, and a public cloud for less sensitive or variable applications that require more scalability and flexibility. By using a hybrid cloud, the organization can balance the load between the private and public clouds, and optimize the resource utilization and cost efficiency of each cloud.

The other cloud deployment models are not primarily used for load balancing, although they may have some load balancing capabilities within their own environments. Public cloud is the infrastructure that is shared by multiple tenants and open to the public. Anyone can use the public cloud by subscribing to it. Public cloud offers high scalability, elasticity, and cost-effectiveness, but may have lower security, privacy, and control than private cloud2. Community cloud is the infrastructure that is shared by similar consumers who collaborate to set up a cloud for their exclusive use. For example, government organizations can form a cloud for their exclusive use. Community cloud offers some benefits of both public and private clouds, such as shared costs, common standards, and enhanced security, but may have lower scalability and flexibility than public cloud2. Private cloud is the infrastructure that is for the exclusive use of a single organization. The cloud may or may not be operated by the organization. Private cloud offers high security, privacy, and control, but may have lower scalability, elasticity, and cost-effectiveness than public cloud2. References:

• 1: What is Load Balancing? | How Load Balancing Works | F5
• 2: The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing
• 3: What is Hybrid Cloud? | IBM
• : Hybrid Cloud Load Balancing - Kemp Technologies
• : [Hybrid Cloud Load Balancing: What You Need to Know - CloudHealth by VMware]

Asset management is the process of identifying, tracking, and managing the physical and digital assets of an organization. An asset management program is a set of policies, procedures, and tools that help to ensure the optimal use, security, and disposal of assets. According to the Shared Assessments CTPRP Study Guide1, an asset management program should include the following components:

• Asset inventories: A comprehensive and accurate list of all assets owned, leased, or used by the organization, including hardware, software, data, and services. Asset inventories should include connections to external parties, networks, or systems that process data, as this may introduce additional risks and dependencies12.
• Asset owners: A clear assignment of roles and responsibilities for each asset, including an organizational owner who is accountable for the asset throughout its life cycle. Asset owners should ensure that assets are properly maintained, updated, secured, and disposed of in accordance with the organization’s policies and standards13.
• Asset classification: A consistent and objective method of categorizing assets based on their criticality or data sensitivity. Asset classification helps to determine the appropriate level of protection, monitoring, and testing for each asset, as well as the potential impact of asset loss or compromise1 .
• Asset controls: A set of measures and mechanisms that help to safeguard assets from unauthorized access, use, modification, disclosure, or destruction. Asset controls may include physical, technical, administrative, or contractual means, such as locks, encryption, passwords, policies, or agreements1 .

The statement that is least likely to represent a component of an asset management program is D. Asset inventories should track the flow or distribution of items used to fulfill products and Services across production lines. This statement describes a supply chain management function, not an asset management function. Supply chain management is the process of planning, coordinating, and controlling the flow of materials, information, and services from suppliers to customers. Supply chain management may involve some aspects of asset management, such as inventory control, quality assurance, or vendor risk management, but it is not the same as asset management . Asset management focuses on the assets that the organization owns or uses, not the assets that the organization produces or delivers.

References:

• 1: Shared Assessments. (2020). Certified Third Party Risk Professional (CTPRP) Study Guide.
• 2: ISACA. (2019). COBIT 2019 Framework: Governance and Management Objectives. APO03 Manage enterprise architecture.
• 3: ISO. (2018). ISO/IEC 27001:2018 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements. Clause 8.1.2 Asset management roles and responsibilities.
• : NIST. (2013). NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. RA-2 Security Categorization.
• : NIST. (2013). NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. CM-8 Information System Component Inventory.
• : APICS. (2018). APICS Dictionary, 16th edition. Supply chain management.
• : ISACA. (2019). COBIT 2019 Framework: Governance and Management Objectives. APO13 Manage security.

This answer is the best approach because it aligns with the principles of third-party risk management, which include ensuring compliance with company policies, contractual obligations, and regulatory requirements. By asking the vendor to replace the subcontractor, the company is exercising its right to terminate or modify the relationship if the vendor fails to meet the agreed-upon standards or poses unacceptable risks. This also minimizes the potential impact of the vendor’s non-compliance on the company’s reputation, operations, and data security. The other options are less effective because they either ignore the issue, compromise the company’s policy, or rely on the vendor’s self-assessment without verification. References:

• Third Party Risk Management Framework, Module 3: Program Governance, Section 3.2: Policies and Procedures, p. 14
• Third Party Risk Management Framework, Module 4: Program Components, Section 4.3: Contracting, p. 24
• Third Party Risk Management Framework, Module 5: Program Implementation, Section 5.2: Ongoing Monitoring, p. 32
• Best-Practices Guidance for Third-Party Risk, Section: Defend Against Privileged User Risks, p. 2
• Five Best Practices to Manage and Control Third-Party Risk, Section: Best Practices for Controlling Third-Party Vendor Risks, p. 3

A cloud hosting vendor assessment program is a process of evaluating the security, compliance, and performance of a cloud service provider (CSP) that hosts an organization’s data or applications. A cloud hosting vendor assessment program typically includes the following components123:

• Reviewing the entity’s image snapshot approval and management process: This component involves verifying how the CSP creates, approves, stores, and deletes image snapshots of the virtual machines or containers that run the organization’s workloads. Image snapshots can contain sensitive data or configuration settings that need to be protected from unauthorized access or modification.
• Requiring security services documentation and audit attestation reports: This component involves requesting and reviewing the CSP’s documentation and reports that demonstrate the security controls and practices that the CSP implements to protect the organization’s data and applications. These may include service level agreements (SLAs), security policies and procedures, security certifications and standards, vulnerability scanning and patching reports, incident response and disaster recovery plans, and independent audit reports such as SOC 2 or ISO 27001.
• Requiring compliance evidence that provides the definition of patching responsibilities: This component involves asking and verifying how the CSP handles the patching of the operating systems, applications, and libraries that run on the cloud infrastructure. Patching is a critical activity to prevent security breaches and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. The organization needs to understand the roles and responsibilities of the CSP and the organization in patching the cloud environment, and the frequency and scope of patching activities.

The component that is typically NOT part of a cloud hosting vendor assessment program is conducting customer performed penetration tests. Penetration testing is a method of simulating a cyberattack on a system or network to identify and exploit vulnerabilities and weaknesses. While penetration testing can be a valuable tool to assess the security posture of a CSP, it is not usually included in a cloud hosting vendor assessment program for the following reasons :

• Penetration testing may violate the CSP’s terms of service or acceptable use policy, which may prohibit or restrict the customer from performing any unauthorized or disruptive activities on the cloud infrastructure. The customer may face legal or contractual consequences if they conduct penetration testing without the CSP’s consent or knowledge.
• Penetration testing may interfere with the CSP’s normal operations or affect the availability and performance of the cloud services for other customers. The customer may cause unintended damage or disruption to the CSP’s systems or networks, or trigger false alarms or alerts that may divert the CSP’s resources or attention.
• Penetration testing may not provide a comprehensive or accurate assessment of the CSP’s security, as the customer may have limited visibility or access to the CSP’s internal systems or networks, or may encounter security mechanisms or countermeasures that prevent or limit the penetration testing activities. The customer may also face ethical or legal issues if they access or compromise the data or systems of other customers or the CSP.

Therefore, the verified answer to the question is D. Conducting customer performed penetration tests.

References:

• Four Important Best Practices for Assessing Cloud Vendors
• Top 11 Questionnaires for IT Vendor Assessment in 2024
• Cloud Vendor Assessments | Done The Right Way
• [Penetration Testing in the Cloud: What You Need to Know]
• [Cloud Penetration Testing: Challenges and Best Practices]

 A regulation is a rule of order having the force of law, prescribed by a superior or competent authority, relating to the actions of those under the authority’s control. Regulations are issued by various government departments and agencies to carry out the intent of legislation enacted by the legislature of the applicable jurisdiction. Regulations also function to ensure uniform application of the law. A standard is a guideline established generally by private-sector bodies and that are available for use by any person or organization, private or government. The term includes what are commonly referred to as ‘industry standards’ as well as ‘consensus standards’. Standards are developed through a voluntary process of collaboration and consensus among stakeholders, such as manufacturers, consumers, regulators, and experts. Standards may reflect best practices, technical specifications, performance criteria, or quality requirements. Standards do not have the force of law unless they are adopted or referenced by a regulation. Therefore, a regulation must be adhered to by all companies subject to its requirements, but companies can voluntarily choose to follow standards that are relevant and beneficial to their operations, products, or services. References:

• The Difference Between Regulations and Standards
• Regulations vs Standards: Clearing Up the Confusion - AEM
• Standards vs. Regulations
• Certified Third Party Risk Professional (CTPRP) Study Guide

The contract is not the only enforceable control to stipulate third party service provider obligations for DR/BCP, nor are both programs necessarily triggered by the pandemic. According to the Shared Assessments Program, third party risk management (TPRM) is a continuous process that requires ongoing monitoring and assessment of third parties’ performance, compliance, and resilience. Therefore, the contract should be complemented by other controls, such as due diligence, audits, reviews, and reporting, to ensure that third parties meet the organization’s expectations and standards for DR/BCP. Moreover, DR/BCP are not only relevant for pandemic scenarios, but also for other types of disasters, such as natural disasters, cyberattacks, power outages, or human errors. Therefore, the contract should reflect the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance for different types of disruptions and scenarios, and not be limited to pandemic-related events. 

One of the key objectives of a TPRM program is to identify and mitigate the risks posed by third parties throughout the relationship life cycle. Therefore, measuring the operational performance of implementing a TPRM program requires tracking the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management processes and activities. Among the four examples given, calculating the average time to remediate identified corrective actions is the most likely to provide meaningful metrics for this purpose. This metric indicates how quickly and consistently the organization and its third parties can resolve the issues and gaps that are discovered during the risk assessment and monitoring phases. It also reflects the level of collaboration and communication between the parties, as well as the alignment of expectations and standards. A lower average time to remediate implies a higher operational performance of the TPRM program, as it demonstrates a proactive and responsive approach to risk management12.

The other three examples are less likely to provide meaningful metrics for measuring the operational performance of implementing a TPRM program, as they do not directly measure the outcomes or impacts of the risk management activities. Logging the number of exceptions to existing due diligence standards may indicate the level of compliance and consistency of the TPRM program, but it does not show how the exceptions are handled or justified. Measuring the time spent by resources for task and corrective action plan completion may indicate the level of effort and resource allocation of the TPRM program, but it does not show how the tasks and plans contribute to the risk reduction or mitigation. Tracking the number of outstanding findings may indicate the level of exposure and vulnerability of the TPRM program, but it does not show how the findings are prioritized or addressed. References:

• 1: 15 KPIs & Metrics to Measure the Success of Your TPRM Program | UpGuard Blog
• 2: Third-Party Risk Management Reporting: What You Need to Know - Venminder

 This answer is correct because a change at outsourcer due to merger and acquisition (M&A) is the least likely indicator to trigger a reassessment of an existing vendor. This is because the outsourcer is not the direct vendor of the organization, but rather a third party that the vendor uses to perform some of its services. Therefore, the impact of the change at the outsourcer on the vendor’s performance and risk level may not be significant or immediate. However, the other indicators (A, B, and C) are more likely to trigger a reassessment of an existing vendor, as they directly affect the vendor’s operations, capabilities, and compliance status. For example:

• A change in vendor location or use of new fourth parties may introduce new risks such as geopolitical, regulatory, or cybersecurity risks that need to be evaluated and mitigated.
• A change in scope of existing work may alter the vendor’s access to the organization’s data or systems, which may require additional security measures and controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information assets.
• A change in regulation that impacts service provider requirements may impose new obligations or standards on the vendor that need to be verified and monitored to ensure compliance and avoid penalties or fines. References:
• How to Conduct a Successful Vendor Risk Assessment in 9 Steps, Case IQ
• Why You Need to Reassess Vendor Risk on an Ongoing Basis, ThirdPartyTrust
• Vendor Assessment and Evaluation Guide, Smartsheet

An enterprise information security policy (EISP) is a management-level document that details the organization’s philosophy, objectives, and expectations regarding information security. It sets the direction, scope, and tone for all security efforts and provides a framework for developing and implementing security programs and controls. According to the web search results from the search_web tool, some of the key elements of an EISP are:

• A statement of the organization’s security vision, mission, and principles that align with its business goals and values123.
• A definition of the organizational structure and accountabilities for oversight, governance, and management of information security, including roles and responsibilities of senior executives, security officers, business units, and users123 .
• A specification of the legal and regulatory compliance requirements and obligations that the organization must adhere to, such as data protection, privacy, and breach notification laws123 .
• A description of the scope and applicability of the EISP, including the types of information, systems, and assets that are covered, and the exclusions or exceptions that may apply123 .
• A declaration of the effective date and date of last review by management, as well as the frequency and criteria for reviewing and updating the EISP to ensure its relevance and adequacy123 .
• A statement of the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance, and the process for identifying, assessing, and treating information security risks123 .
• A provision of the authority and responsibility for implementing, enforcing, monitoring, and auditing the EISP and its related policies, standards, procedures, and guidelines123 .
• A determination of the access control policy and the rules for granting, revoking, and reviewing access rights and privileges to information, systems, and assets123 .
• An organization of the EISP based on an accepted control framework, such as ISO 27001, NIST SP 800-53, or COBIT, that defines the security domains, objectives, and controls that the organization must implement and maintain123 .

However, option C, a statement that security policies should be changed on an annual basis due to technology changes, is not an accurate reflection of an organization’s requirements within an EISP. While technology changes may affect the security environment and the threats and vulnerabilities that the organization faces, they are not the only factor that determines the need for changing security policies. Other factors, such as business changes, legal changes, risk changes, audit findings, incident reports, and best practices, may also trigger the need for reviewing and updating security policies. Therefore, option C is the correct answer, as it is the only one that does not reflect an organization’s requirements within an EISP. References: The following resources support the verified answer and explanation:

• 1: What Is The Purpose Of An Enterprise Information Security Policy?
• 2: Enterprise Information Security Policies and Standards
• 3: Key Elements Of An Enterprise Information Security Policy
• : Enterprise Information Security Policy (EISP) - SANS

According to the Shared Assessments CTPRP Study Guide, the business unit relationship owner is the primary point of contact for the third party and is responsible for ensuring that the third party meets the contractual obligations and service level agreements. The business unit relationship owner is also involved in the third party risk assessment process and the remediation plan approval. Therefore, a meeting should be scheduled with the business unit relationship owner before sharing the findings and remediation plans with the third party, as they have the authority and accountability to approve or reject the plans. The other options are not necessarily involved in the remediation plan approval, although they may have other roles in the third party risk management lifecycle. References:

• Shared Assessments CTPRP Study Guide, page 9, section 1.3.2
• The Third-Party Vendor Risk Management Lifecycle, section on Supplier Onboarding & Risk Monitoring
• Remediation vs. Mitigation, section on Remediation