The requirements for Information Security objectives are found in ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.2:

Top management shall ensure that information security objectives are established.

Objectives must:

Be consistent with the information security policy.

Be measurable (if practicable).

Take into account applicable information security requirements, and results from risk assessments and risk treatment.

Be communicated.

Be monitored.

Be updated as appropriate.

When planning how to achieve objectives, organisations must determine:

What will be done.

What resources will be required.

Who will be responsible.

When it will be completed.

How the results will be evaluated.

Analysis of each option:

A. Reviewed at all management reviews → Concern.ISO 27001 clause 9.3 (Management review) requires that the status of objectives is reviewed, but not at all management reviews — only at scheduled ones. Mandating every review is incorrect.

B. Communication → Correct.Clause 6.2 requires objectives to be communicated. This is valid.

C. Completion date → Correct.Clause 6.2 requires organisations to determine when it will be completed. Valid.

D. Measurable → Correct.Clause 6.2 explicitly says objectives must be measurable (if practicable). Valid.

E. Distributed to all staff → Concern.Clause 6.2 requires objectives to be communicated to those who need to be aware, not all staff. This is overreach and not aligned with the standard.

F. Budget/resources → Correct.Clause 6.2 requires determining what resources will be required. Valid.

G. Process to revisit → Correct.Clause 6.2 requires objectives to be updated as appropriate. Valid.

H. Top management determine annually → Concern.Clause 6.2 requires top management to ensure objectives are established, but there is no requirement for an annual cycle. This could cause mis-audit findings.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Clause 6.2 (Information security objectives and planning to achieve them)

Sinvestment should correct the documentation deficiencies before proceeding to the stage 2 audit, making option A the correct answer. The purpose of the stage 1 audit is to assess the organization’s readiness for certification, including the adequacy and completeness of required documented information. Identified gaps during stage 1 are intended to be resolved prior to stage 2 to avoid major nonconformities.

ISO/IEC 27001 requires organizations to maintain documented information for information security awareness, education, and training. While Sinvestment’s management stated that training was delivered, the absence of complete documentation represents a failure to demonstrate conformity. Audits rely on objective evidence, not verbal assurances.

Option B is incorrect because deferring corrective action until after certification contradicts the intent of the two-stage audit process. Stage 2 should only proceed once readiness gaps are addressed. Option C is incorrect because the issue is not a risk identification problem but a documentation and evidence problem. The existence of training is not in question; the lack of proper documentation is.

Therefore, Sinvestment should update the documentation promptly and provide it to the audit team before stage 2.

According to ISO/IEC 27000:2018, which provides an overview and vocabulary of information security management systems, an information security event is an identified occurrence of a system, service or network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, or a previously unknown situation that may be security relevant1. An information security incident is a single or a series of unwanted or unexpected information security events that have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security1. Therefore, based on this definition, three examples of information security incidents are:

A contractor who has not been paid deletes top management ICT accounts: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of access, data, or functionality for the top management.

An unhappy employee changes payroll records without permission: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in financial fraud, legal liability, or reputational damage for the organization.

The organisation’s marketing data is copied by hackers and sold to a competitor: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of confidentiality, competitive advantage, or customer trust for the organization.

The other options are not examples of information security incidents, but rather information security events that may or may not lead to incidents depending on their impact and severity. For example:

The organisation’s malware protection software prevents a virus: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it is prevented by the malware protection software.

A hard drive is used after its recommended replacement date: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it fails or causes other problems.

The organisation receives a phishing email: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it is opened or responded to by the recipient.

An employee fails to clear their desk at the end of their shift: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a service state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the desk contains sensitive or confidential information that is accessed by unauthorized persons.

The organisation fails a third-party penetration test: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the penetration test reveals serious vulnerabilities that are exploited by malicious actors.

The audit team stated that the risk of a significant defect occurring in Data Grid Inc. ' s ISMS was low. This refers to " Control Risk, " which is the risk that a misstatement could occur in any relevant assertion related to an ISMS and that the risk could not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by the organization ' s internal control systems.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), control A.7.2 requires an organization to implement appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas1. The organization should define and document the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, and should monitor and record the use of such access rights1. Therefore, when auditing the organization’s application of control A.7.2, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Based on the scenario above, the auditor should raise a nonconformity against control A.7.2, as the secure area is not adequately protected from unauthorized access. The auditor should provide the following evidence and justification for the nonconformity:

Evidence: The auditor observed two external contractors using a swipe card and combination number provided by the centre’s reception desk to gain access to a client’s suite to carry out authorized electrical repairs. The auditor checked the door access record for the client’s suite and found that only one card was swiped. The auditor asked the receptionist and was told that it was a common problem that contractors tend to swipe one card and tailgate their way in, but they were known from the reception sign-in.

Justification: This evidence indicates that the organization has not implemented appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas, as required by control A.7.2. The organization has not defined and documented the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, as there is no verification or authorization process for providing swipe cards and combination numbers to external contractors. The organization has not monitored and recorded the use of access rights to secure areas, as there is no mechanism to ensure that each individual swipes their card and enters their combination number before entering a secure area. The organization has relied on the reception sign-in as a means of identification, which is not sufficient or reliable for ensuring information security.

The other options are not valid actions for auditing control A.7.2, as they are not related to the control or its requirements, or they are not appropriate or effective for addressing the nonconformity. For example:

Take no action: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor ignores or accepts the nonconformity, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.

Raise a nonconformity against control A.5.20 ‘addressing information security in supplier relationships’ as information security requirements have not been agreed upon with the supplier: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not supplier relationships. Control A.5.20 requires an organization to agree on information security requirements with suppliers that may access, process, store, communicate or provide IT infrastructure components for its information assets1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security in supplier relationships, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.

Raise a nonconformity against control A.7.6 ‘working in secure areas’ as security measures for working in secure areas have not been defined: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not working in secure areas. Control A.7.6 requires an organization to define and apply security measures for working in secure areas1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security when working in secure areas, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.

Determine whether any additional effective arrangements are in place to verify individual access to secure areas e.g. CCTV: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather attempts to find alternative or compensating controls that may mitigate its impact or likelihood. While additional arrangements such as CCTV may be useful for verifying individual access to secure areas, they do not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.

Raise an opportunity for improvement that contractors must be accompanied at all times when accessing secure facilities: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may prevent or reduce its recurrence or severity. While accompanying contractors at all times when accessing secure facilities may be a good practice for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.

Raise an opportunity for improvement to have a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may increase awareness or compliance with the existing controls. While having a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times may be a helpful reminder for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.

Tell the organisation they must write to their contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather instructs the organization to take a corrective action that may not be effective or sufficient for ensuring information security. While writing to contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately may be a communication measure for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.