Isaca CCAK Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge Exam Practice Test

 An example of availability technical impact is a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that renders the customer’s cloud inaccessible for 24 hours. Availability technical impact refers to the effect of a cloud security incident on the protection of data and services from disruption or denial. Availability is one of the three security properties of an information system, along with confidentiality and integrity.

Option A is an example of availability technical impact because it shows how a DDoS attack, which is a type of cyberattack that overwhelms a system or network with malicious traffic and prevents legitimate users from accessing it, can cause a severe and prolonged disruption of the customer’s cloud services. Option A also implies that the customer’s organization depends on the availability of its cloud services for its core business operations.

The other options are not examples of availability technical impact. Option B is an example of confidentiality technical impact, which refers to the effect of a cloud security incident on the protection of data from unauthorized access or disclosure. Option B shows how a breach of customer personal data from an unsecured server, which is a type of data leakage or exposure attack that exploits the lack of proper security controls on a system or network, can cause a violation of the privacy and security of the customer’s data. Option C is an example of integrity technical impact, which refers to the effect of a cloud security incident on the protection of data from unauthorized modification or deletion. Option C shows how an administrator inadvertently clicking on phish bait, which is a type of social engineering or phishing attack that tricks a user into clicking on a malicious link or attachment, can expose the company to a ransomware attack, which is a type of malware or encryption attack that locks or encrypts the data and demands a ransom for its release. Option D is also an example of integrity technical impact, as it shows how a hacker using a stolen administrator identity, which is a type of identity theft or impersonation attack that exploits the credentials or privileges of a legitimate user to access or manipulate a system or network, can alter the discount percentage in the product database, which is a type of data tampering or corruption attack that affects the accuracy and reliability of the data. References :=

• OWASP Risk Rating Methodology | OWASP Foundation1
• OEE Factors: Availability, Performance, and Quality | OEE2
• The Effects of Technological Developments on Work and Their …

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

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

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

• Top Threats Analysis Methodology - CSA1
• Top Threats Analysis Methodology - Cloud Security Alliance2
• OWASP Risk Rating Methodology | OWASP Foundation3
• OEE Factors: Availability, Performance, and Quality | OEE4
• The Effects of Technological Developments on Work and Their 

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

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

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

References:

• Detective controls - SaaS Lens - docs.aws.amazon.com3, section on Privileged access monitoring
• Detective controls | Cloud Architecture Center | Google Cloud2, section on Detective controls
• Internal control: how do preventive and detective controls work?4, section on SaaS Solutions to Support Internal Control
• Detective Control: Definition, Examples, Vs. Preventive Control1, section on What Is a Detective Control?

During the implementation phase of a cloud assurance program, the focus is on establishing the operational aspects that will ensure the ongoing security and compliance of the cloud environment. This includes developing the monitoring goals and requirements which are essential for setting up the assurance framework. It involves determining what needs to be monitored, how it should be monitored, and the metrics that will be used to measure compliance and performance.

References = The information aligns with best practices for cloud migration and assurance programs as outlined in various resources, including the Cloud Assurance Program Guide by Microsoft Cybersecurity1, which discusses the importance of developing and implementing policies for cloud data and system migration, and the Enterprise Guide to Successful Cloud Adoption by New Relic2, which emphasizes the role of observability in cloud migration, including the establishment of monitoring goals.

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

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

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

• The accuracy and validity of the reputation data may depend on the source, method, and frequency of data collection and aggregation. For example, some reputation data may be outdated, incomplete, biased, manipulated, or falsified by malicious actors or competitors.
• The interpretation and comparison of the reputation data may vary depending on the context, criteria, and preferences of the customers. For example, some customers may value different aspects of the cloud service more than others, such as security, availability, cost, or functionality.
• The trustworthiness and accountability of the reputation system itself may be questionable. For example, some reputation systems may lack transparency, consistency, or standardization in their design, implementation, or operation.

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

Requirements define control activities, which are the actions, processes, or mechanisms that are implemented to achieve the control objectives1. Control objectives are the targets or desired conditions to be met that are designed to ensure that policy intent is met2. Guidelines are the recommended practices or advice that provide flexibility in how to implement a policy, standard, or control3. Policies are the statements of management’s intent that establish the direction, purpose, and scope of an organization’s internal control system4.

References:

• COSO – Control Activities - Deloitte1, section on Control Activities
• Words Matter - Understanding Policies, Control Objectives, Standards …2, section on Control Objectives
• Understanding Policies, Control Objectives, Standards, Guidelines …3, section on Guidelines
• Internal Control Handbook4, section on Policies

The best method to report continuous assessment of a cloud provider’s services to the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) is through a set of dedicated application programming interfaces (APIs). According to the CSA website1, the STAR Continuous program is a component of the STAR certification that allows cloud service providers to validate their security posture on an ongoing basis. The STAR Continuous program leverages a set of APIs that can integrate with the cloud provider’s existing tools and processes, such as security information and event management (SIEM), governance, risk management, and compliance (GRC), or continuous monitoring systems. The APIs enable the cloud provider to collect, analyze, and report security-related data to the CSA STAR registry in near real-time. The APIs also allow the CSA to verify the data and provide feedback to the cloud provider and the customers. The STAR Continuous program aims to provide more transparency, assurance, and trust in the cloud ecosystem by enabling continuous visibility into the security performance of cloud services.

The other methods listed are not suitable for reporting continuous assessment of a cloud provider’s services to the CSA. The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) assessment by a third-party auditor on a periodic basis is part of the STAR Certification Level 2 program, which provides a point-in-time validation of the cloud provider’s security controls. However, this method does not provide continuous assessment or reporting, as it only occurs once every 12 or 24 months2. The tools selected by the third-party auditor may vary depending on the scope, criteria, and methodology of the audit, and they may not be compatible or consistent with the CSA’s standards and frameworks. Moreover, the tools may not be able to report the audit results to the CSA STAR registry automatically or frequently. The SOC 2 Type 2 attestation is an independent audit report that evaluates the cloud provider’s security controls based on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Trust Services Criteria. However, this report is not specific to cloud computing and does not cover all aspects of the CCM. Furthermore, this report is not intended to be shared publicly or reported to the CSA STAR registry3.

References:

• STAR Continuous | CSA
• STAR Certification | CSA
• SOC 2 vs CSA STAR: Which One Should You Choose?

 A DDoS attack renders the customer’s cloud inaccessible for 24 hours, resulting in millions in lost sales is an example of financial business impact. Financial business impact refers to the extent of damage or harm that a threat can cause to the financial objectives and performance of the organization, such as revenue, profit, cash flow, or market share. A DDoS attack can cause a significant financial business impact by disrupting the normal operations and transactions of the organization, leading to loss of sales, customers, contracts, or opportunities. According to a report by Kaspersky, the average cost of a DDoS attack for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) was $123,000 in 2019, while for enterprises it was $2.3 million.1 Therefore, it is important for organizations to implement appropriate security measures and contingency plans to prevent or mitigate the effects of a DDoS attack. References := The Future of Finance and the Global Economy: Facing Global … - IMF2; Kaspersky: Cost of a DDoS Attack1

 The best approach for an auditor to review the operating effectiveness of the password requirement is to review the configuration settings on the Configuration Management (CM) tool and verify that the CM tool agents are functioning correctly on the VMs. This method ensures that the password policies are being enforced as intended and that the CM tool is effectively managing the configurations across the organization’s virtual machines. It provides a balance between relying solely on automated tools and manual verification processes.

References = This approach is supported by best practices in cloud security and auditing, which recommend a combination of automated tools and manual checks to ensure the effectiveness of security controls123. The use of CM tools for enforcing password policies is a common practice, and their effectiveness must be regularly verified to maintain the security posture of cloud services.

 Dynamic application security testing (DAST) is a method of testing the security of an application by simulating attacks from an external source. DAST does not require access to the source code or binaries of the application, unlike static application security testing (SAST), which analyzes the code for vulnerabilities. Therefore, DAST is a black box testing technique, meaning that it does not need any knowledge of the internal structure, design, or implementation of the application. DAST is also programming language agnostic, meaning that it can test applications written in any language, framework, or platform. This makes DAST more flexible and adaptable to different types of applications and environments. However, DAST also has some limitations, such as being slower, less accurate, and more dependent on the availability and configuration of the application. References:

• SAST vs. DAST: What’s the Difference?
• SAST vs DAST: What’s the Difference?
• SAST vs. DAST: Enhancing application security

Continuous auditing is a method of auditing that provides assurance on the current state of controls and compliance in a cloud environment, rather than relying on periodic snapshots or attestations. Continuous auditing can leverage continuous monitoring data and automated tools to collect and analyze evidence of compliance, as well as alert auditors and stakeholders of any deviations or issues. Continuous auditing can complement point-in-time assurance approaches, such as certifications or audits, by providing more timely and frequent feedback on the effectiveness of controls and compliance in a cloud environment. References :=

• ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 821
• ISACA, Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam, 2021, p. 30

 The effect of applicable statutory requirements should have priority in planning the scope and objectives of a cloud audit, as they are the mandatory and enforceable rules that govern the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. Statutory requirements may vary depending on the jurisdiction, industry, or sector of the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, as well as the type, location, and sensitivity of the data processed or stored in the cloud. Statutory requirements may include laws, regulations, standards, or codes that relate to data protection, privacy, security, compliance, governance, taxation, or liability. The cloud auditor should identify and understand the applicable statutory requirements that affect the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, and assess whether they are met and adhered to by both parties. The cloud auditor should also verify that the contractual terms and conditions between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer reflect and comply with the applicable statutory requirements123.

Applicable industry good practices (A) are important for planning the scope and objectives of a cloud audit, but they are not as high priority as applicable statutory requirements. Industry good practices are the recommended or accepted methods or techniques for achieving a desired outcome or result in a specific domain or context. Industry good practices may include frameworks, guidelines, principles, or best practices that are developed by professional bodies, associations, or organizations that have expertise or authority in a certain field or area. Industry good practices may help the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer to improve their performance, quality, efficiency, or effectiveness in delivering or using cloud services. However, industry good practices are not mandatory or enforceable, and they may vary or change over time depending on the evolution of technology or business needs123.

Organizational policies and procedures © are important for planning the scope and objectives of a cloud audit, but they are not as high priority as applicable statutory requirements. Organizational policies and procedures are the internal rules and guidelines that define the objectives, expectations, and responsibilities of an organization regarding its operations, activities, processes, or functions. Organizational policies and procedures may include mission statements, vision statements, values statements, strategies, goals, plans, standards, manuals, handbooks, or instructions that are specific to an organization. Organizational policies and procedures may help the organization to align its actions and decisions with its purpose and direction, as well as to ensure consistency and accountability among its members or stakeholders. However, organizational policies and procedures are not mandatory or enforceable outside the organization, and they may differ or conflict among different organizations123.

Applicable corporate standards (D) are important for planning the scope and objectives of a cloud audit, but they are not as high priority as applicable statutory requirements. Corporate standards are the internal rules and guidelines that define the minimum level of quality, performance, reliability, or compatibility that an organization expects from its products, services, processes, or systems. Corporate standards may include specifications, criteria, metrics, indicators, benchmarks, or baselines that are specific to an organization. Corporate standards may help the organization to measure and evaluate its outputs or outcomes against its objectives or expectations, as well as to identify and address any gaps or issues that may arise. However, corporate standards are not mandatory or enforceable outside the organization, and they may differ or conflict among different organizations123. References :=

• Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Providers - Cloud Standards …
• Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Customers - Cloud Standards …
• Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

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

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

 An example of financial business impact is a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that renders the customer’s cloud inaccessible for 24 hours, resulting in millions in lost sales. Financial business impact refers to the monetary losses or gains that an organization may experience as a result of a cloud security incident. Financial business impact can be measured by factors such as revenue, profit, cost, cash flow, market share, and stock price .

Option A is an example of financial business impact because it shows how a DDoS attack, which is a type of cyberattack that overwhelms a system or network with malicious traffic and prevents legitimate users from accessing it, can cause direct and significant financial losses for the customer’s organization due to the interruption of its cloud services and the inability to generate sales. Option A also implies that the customer’s organization depends on the availability of its cloud services for its core business operations.

The other options are not examples of financial business impact. Option B is an example of operational business impact, which refers to the disruption or degradation of the organization’s processes, functions, or activities as a result of a cloud security incident. Operational business impact can be measured by factors such as productivity, efficiency, quality, performance, and customer satisfaction . Option B shows how a hacker using a stolen administrator identity, which is a type of identity theft or impersonation attack that exploits the credentials or privileges of a legitimate user to access or manipulate a system or network, can cause operational business impact for the customer’s organization by bringing down its SaaS sales and marketing systems, which are essential for its business functions.

Option C is an example of reputational business impact, which refers to the damage or enhancement of the organization’s image, brand, or reputation as a result of a cloud security incident. Reputational business impact can be measured by factors such as trust, loyalty, satisfaction, awareness, and perception of the organization’s stakeholders, such as customers, partners, investors, regulators, and media . Option C shows how a breach reported in a timely manner to the CEO, which is a good practice for ensuring transparency and accountability in the event of a cloud security incident, can still cause reputational business impact for the customer’s organization due to the public blame game between the CFO and CISO, which reflects poorly on the organization’s leadership and culture and leads to the board replacing all three. References :=

• Business Impact Analysis - Ready.gov
• Business Impact Analysis - Cloud Security Alliance
• What Is A Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Attack? | Cloudflare
• What is Identity Theft? - Cloud Security Alliance
• Incident Response - Cloud Security Alliance

 In a multi-level supply chain structure, the cloud service provider should ensure that any compliance requirements relevant to the provider are passed to the sub cloud service providers, regardless of their geographic location. This is because the sub cloud service providers may have access to or process the data of the provider’s customers, and thus may affect the compliance status of the provider. The provider should also monitor and verify the compliance of the sub cloud service providers on a regular basis. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain COM-01: Regulatory Frameworks, which states that "The organization should identify and comply with applicable regulatory frameworks, contractual obligations, and industry standards."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 3: Cloud Compliance Program, page 51

According to the blog article “Continuous Auditing and Continuous Certification” by the Cloud Security Alliance, a certification target helps in the formation of a continuous certification framework by incorporating the scope description and security attributes to be tested1 A certification target is a set of security objectives that a cloud service provider (CSP) defines and commits to fulfill as part of the continuous certification process1 Each security objective is associated with a policy that specifies the assessment frequency, such as every four hours, every day, or every week1 A certification target also includes a set of tools that are capable of verifying that the security objectives are met, such as automated scripts, APIs, or third-party services1

The other options are not correct because:

• Option A is not correct because the service level objective (SLO) and service qualitative objective (SQO) are not part of the certification target, but rather part of the service level agreement (SLA) between the CSP and the cloud customer. An SLO is a measurable characteristic of the cloud service, such as availability, performance, or reliability. An SQO is a qualitative characteristic of the cloud service, such as security, privacy, or compliance2 The SLA defines the expected level of service and the consequences of not meeting it. The SLA may be used as an input for defining the certification target, but it is not equivalent or synonymous with it.
• Option C is not correct because the frequency of evaluating security attributes is not the only component of the certification target, but rather one aspect of it. The frequency of evaluating security attributes is determined by the policy that is associated with each security objective in the certification target. The policy defines how often the security objective should be verified by the tools, such as every four hours, every day, or every week1 However, the frequency alone does not define the certification target, as it also depends on the scope description and the security attributes to be tested.
• Option D is not correct because CSA STAR level 2 attestation is not a component of the certification target, but rather a prerequisite for it. CSA STAR level 2 attestation is a third-party independent assessment of the CSP’s security posture based on ISO/IEC 27001 and CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)3 CSA STAR level 2 attestation provides a baseline assurance level for the CSP before they can define and implement their certification target for continuous certification. CSA STAR level 2 attestation is also required for CSA STAR level 3 certification, which is based on continuous auditing and continuous certification3

References: 1: Continuous Auditing and Continuous Certification - Cloud Security Alliance 2: Service Level Agreement | CSA 3: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance

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

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

This control specification aligns with the concept of independent audits, which are crucial for verifying that an organization adheres to its established policies, standards, procedures, and compliance obligations. The requirement for these reviews and assessments to be performed at least annually ensures ongoing compliance and the ability to address any areas of nonconformity. Independent audits provide an objective assessment and are essential for maintaining transparency and trust in the cloud services provided.

References = The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) specifically mentions the need for independent assessments to be conducted annually as part of the Audit Assurance and Compliance domain, which is detailed in the CCM’s guidelines and related documents provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA)12.

A cloud service provider (CSP) providing cloud services currently being used by the United States federal government should obtain FedRAMP Authorization to assure compliance to stringent government standards. FedRAMP is a government-wide program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. FedRAMP enables agencies to leverage the security assessments of CSPs that have been approved by FedRAMP, and establishes a baseline set of security controls for cloud computing, based on NIST SP 800-53. FedRAMP also helps CSPs to demonstrate their compliance with relevant laws and regulations, such as FISMA, FIPS, and NIST standards. FedRAMP Authorization can be obtained through two paths: a provisional authorization from the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or an authorization from an individual agency12.

The other options are incorrect because:

• A. CSA STAR Level Certificate: CSA STAR is a program for security assurance in the cloud that encompasses key principles of transparency, rigorous auditing, and harmonization of standards. CSA STAR Level Certificate is one of the certification options offered by CSA STAR, which is based on the ISO/IEC 27001 standard and the CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM). CSA STAR Level Certificate is not specific to the US federal government standards, and does not guarantee compliance with FedRAMP requirements3.
• B. Multi-Tier Cloud Security (MTCS) Attestation: MTCS is a cloud security standard developed by the Singapore government to provide greater clarity and transparency on the level of security offered by different CSPs. MTCS defines three levels of security controls for CSPs: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3, with Level 3 being the most stringent. MTCS Attestation is a voluntary self-disclosure scheme for CSPs to declare their conformance to the MTCS standard. MTCS Attestation is not applicable to the US federal government standards, and does not ensure compliance with FedRAMP requirements4.
• C. ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Certification: ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization. ISO/IEC 27001 Certification is an independent verification that an organization conforms to the ISO/IEC 27001 standard. ISO/IEC 27001 Certification is not exclusive to cloud computing or the US federal government standards, and does not cover all aspects of FedRAMP requirements5.

References:

• Learn What FedRAMP is All About | FedRAMP | FedRAMP.gov
• How to Become FedRAMP Authorized | FedRAMP.gov
• STAR | CSA
• Multi-Tiered Cloud Security Standard (MTCS SS)
• ISO - ISO/IEC 27001 — Information security management

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

References:

• Open Certification Framework Working Group | CSA
• STAR | CSA

When an organization is moving to the cloud, responsibilities are shared based upon the cloud service provider’s model and accountability is maintained. This means that the organization remains accountable for the security and compliance of its data and applications in the cloud, even if some of the security responsibilities are delegated to the cloud service provider (CSP). The organization cannot transfer or avoid its accountability to the CSP or any other third party, as it is ultimately responsible for its own business outcomes, legal obligations, and reputation. Therefore, the organization must understand the shared responsibility model and which security tasks are handled by the CSP and which tasks are handled by itself. The organization must also monitor and audit the CSP’s performance and security, and mitigate any risks or issues that may arise12.

References:

• Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure
• Understanding the Shared Responsibilities Model in Cloud Services - ISACA

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

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

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

A security categorization of the information systems should be performed first to properly implement the NIST SP 800-53 r4 control framework in an organization. Security categorization is the process of determining the potential impact on organizational operations, organizational assets, individuals, other organizations, and the Nation resulting from a loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system and the information processed, stored, or transmitted by that system. Security categorization is based on the application of FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, which defines three levels of impact: low, moderate, and high. Security categorization is the first step in the Risk Management Framework (RMF) described in NIST SP 800-37, Revision 2, Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy. Security categorization helps to identify the security requirements for the information system and to select an initial set of baseline security controls from NIST SP 800-53 r4, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. The baseline security controls can then be tailored and supplemented as needed to address specific organizational needs, risk factors, and compliance obligations12.

References:

• SP 800-53 Rev. 4, Security & Privacy Controls for Federal Info Sys …
• SP 800-37 Rev. 2, Risk Management Framework for Information …

A distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack renders the customer’s cloud inaccessible for 24 hours is an example of availability technical impact. Availability is the protection of data and services from disruption or denial, and it is one of the three dimensions of information security, along with confidentiality and integrity. Availability technical impact refers to the extent of damage or harm that a threat can cause to the availability of the information system and its components, such as servers, networks, applications, and data. A DDoS attack is a malicious attempt to overwhelm a target system with a large volume of traffic or requests from multiple sources, making it unable to respond to legitimate requests or perform its normal functions. A DDoS attack can cause a significant availability technical impact by rendering the customer’s cloud inaccessible for a prolonged period of time, resulting in loss of productivity, revenue, customer satisfaction, and reputation. References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 4: A Threat Analysis Methodology for Cloud Using CCM, page 81; What is a DDoS Attack? | Cloudflare

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

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

• What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1
• Understanding the Cloud Control Matrix | CloudBolt Software2
• Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

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

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

• Cloud Computing: Auditing Challenges - ISACA1
• Cloud Computing: Audit Considerations - ISACA2
• Top 16 Cloud Computing Companies & Service Providers 2023 - Datamation

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

Some examples of benchmark controls lists are:

• The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), which is a comprehensive list of 133 control objectives that cover 16 domains of cloud security4.
• The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-53, which is a catalog of 325 security and privacy controls for federal information systems and organizations, including cloud-based systems5.
• The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) / International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 27017, which is a code of practice that provides guidance on 121 information security controls for cloud services based on ISO/IEC 270026.

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

References:

• CSA Security Guidance for Cloud Computing | CSA1, section on Identify necessary security and compliance requirements
• Evaluation Criteria for Cloud Infrastructure as a Service - Gartner2, section on Security Controls
• Checklist: Cloud Services Provider Evaluation Criteria | Synoptek3, section on Security
• Cloud Controls Matrix | CSA4, section on Overview
• NIST Special Publication 800-53 - NIST Pages5, section on Abstract
• ISO/IEC 27017:2015(en), Information technology — Security techniques …6, section on Scope
• What is vendor management? Definition from WhatIs.com7, section on Vendor management
• What is Benchmarking? Definition from WhatIs.com8, section on Benchmarking
• What is Terms and Conditions? Definition from WhatIs.com9, section on Terms and Conditions

Role-based access controls (RBAC) are a method of restricting access to resources based on the roles of individual users within an organization. RBAC allows administrators to assign permissions to roles, rather than to specific users, and then assign users to those roles. This simplifies the management of access rights and reduces the risk of unauthorized or excessive access. RBAC is especially important for ensuring adequate restriction on the number of people who can access the pipeline production environment, which is the final stage of the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) process where code is deployed to the end-users. Access to the production environment should be limited to only those who are responsible for deploying, monitoring, and maintaining the code, such as production engineers, release managers, or site reliability engineers. Developers, testers, or other stakeholders should not have access to the production environment, as this could compromise the security, quality, and performance of the code. RBAC can help enforce this separation of duties and responsibilities by defining different roles for different pipeline stages and granting appropriate permissions to each role. For example, developers may have permission to create, edit, and test code in the development pipeline, but not to deploy or modify code in the production pipeline. Conversely, production engineers may have permission to deploy, monitor, and troubleshoot code in the production pipeline, but not to create or edit code in the development pipeline. RBAC can also help implement the principle of least privilege, which states that users should only have the minimum level of access required to perform their tasks. This reduces the attack surface and minimizes the potential damage in case of a breach or misuse. RBAC can be configured at different levels of granularity, such as at the organization, project, or object level, depending on the needs and complexity of the organization. RBAC can also leverage existing identity and access management (IAM) solutions, such as Azure Active Directory or AWS IAM, to integrate with cloud services and applications.

References:

• Set pipeline permissions - Azure Pipelines
• Azure DevOps: Access, Roles and Permissions
• Cloud Computing — What IT Auditors Should Really Know

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

References:

• ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 83-84.
• ISACA, Cloud Computing Audit Program, 2019, p. 6-7.

 According to the cloud shared responsibility model, the cloud customer is responsible for managing the access controls for the SaaS functionality and operations, and this should be audited by the cloud auditor12. Access controls are the mechanisms that restrict and regulate who can access and use the SaaS applications and data, and how they can do so. Access controls include identity and access management, authentication, authorization, encryption, logging, and monitoring. The cloud customer is responsible for defining and enforcing the access policies, roles, and permissions for the SaaS users, as well as ensuring that the access controls are aligned with the security and compliance requirements of the customer’s business context12.

The other options are not the aspects of SaaS functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Option B is incorrect, as vulnerability management is the process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating the security weaknesses in the SaaS applications and infrastructure, and this is usually handled by the cloud service provider12. Option C is incorrect, as patching is the process of updating and fixing the SaaS applications and infrastructure to address security issues or improve performance, and this is also usually handled by the cloud service provider12. Option D is incorrect, as source code reviews are the process of examining and testing the SaaS applications’ source code to detect errors or vulnerabilities, and this is also usually handled by the cloud service provider12. References:

• Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure
• The Customer’s Responsibility in the Cloud Shared Responsibility Model - ISACA

Management representation is a term used in audit parlance to refer to the statements made by management in response to specific inquiries or through the financial statements, as part of the audit evidence that the auditor obtains. Management representation can be oral or written, but the auditor usually obtains written representation from management in the form of a letter that attests to the accuracy and completeness of the financial statements and other information provided to the auditor. The management representation letter is signed by senior management, such as the CEO and CFO, and is dated the same date of audit work completion. The management representation letter confirms or documents the representations explicitly or implicitly given to the auditor during the audit, indicates the continuing appropriateness of such representations, and reduces the possibility of misunderstanding concerning the matters that are the subject of the representations12.

Management representation is not a person or group of persons representing executive management during audits (A), as this would imply that management is not directly involved or accountable for the audit process. Management representation is not a mechanism to represent organizational structure (B), as this would imply that management representation is a graphical or diagrammatic tool to show the hierarchy or relationships within an organization. Management representation is not a project management technique to demonstrate management’s involvement in key project stages ©, as this would imply that management representation is a method or practice to monitor or report on the progress or outcomes of a project.

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

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

According to the definition of audit scope, it is the extent and boundaries of an audit, which include the audit objectives, the activities and documents covered, the time period and locations audited, and the related activities not audited1 Audit scope determines how deeply an audit is performed and may vary depending on the type of audit. Audit scope can also mean the examination of a person or the inspection of the books, records, or accounts of a person for tax purposes1

The most important audit scope document when conducting a review of a cloud service provider is the processes and systems to be audited. This document defines the specific areas and aspects of the cloud service provider that will be subject to the audit, such as the cloud service delivery model, the cloud deployment model, the cloud security domains, the cloud service level agreements, the cloud governance framework, etc2 The processes and systems to be audited document also helps to identify the risks, controls, criteria, and objectives of the audit, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the auditors and the auditees3 The processes and systems to be audited document is essential for planning and performing an effective and efficient audit of a cloud service provider.

The other options are not correct because:

• Option B is not correct because the updated audit work program is not an audit scope document, but rather an audit planning document. The audit work program is a set of detailed instructions or procedures that guide the auditor in conducting the audit activities4 The audit work program is based on the audit scope, but it does not define it. The audit work program may also change during the course of the audit, depending on the findings and issues encountered by the auditor4
• Option C is not correct because the documentation criteria for the audit evidence is not an audit scope document, but rather an audit quality document. The documentation criteria for the audit evidence is a set of standards or guidelines that specify what constitutes sufficient and appropriate evidence to support the auditor’s conclusions and opinions5 The documentation criteria for the audit evidence is derived from the audit scope, but it does not determine it. The documentation criteria for the audit evidence may also vary depending on the nature and source of the evidence collected by the auditor5
• Option D is not correct because the testing procedure to be performed is not an audit scope document, but rather an audit execution document. The testing procedure to be performed is a set of steps or actions that describe how to test or verify a specific control or process within the cloud service provider6 The testing procedure to be performed is aligned with the audit scope, but it does not establish it. The testing procedure to be performed may also differ depending on the type and level of testing required by the auditor6

References: 1: AUDIT SCOPE DEFINITION - VentureLine 2: Audit Scope and Criteria - Auditor Training Online 3: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance 4: Audit Work Program Definition - Audit Work Program Example 5: INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON AUDITING 230 AUDIT DOCUMENTATION CONTENTS - IFAC 6: What are Testing Procedures? - Definition from Techopedia

 The cloud auditor should check if there is explicit documented approval from all customers whose data is affected by the transfer of production data to the test environment. This is because production data may contain sensitive or personal information that is subject to privacy and security regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Therefore, using production data for testing purposes without the consent of the data owners may violate their rights and expose the organization to legal and reputational risks. This is also stated in the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) control DSI-04: Production / Non-Production Environments12, which is part of the Data Security & Information Lifecycle Management domain. The CCM is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that can be used by cloud customers to build an operational cloud risk management program.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option A, approval of the change by the change advisory board, refers to the process of reviewing and authorizing changes to the system or software before they are implemented in the production environment. This is a good practice for ensuring the quality and reliability of the system or software, but it does not address the issue of using production data for testing purposes. Option C, training for the librarian, refers to the process of providing adequate education and awareness to the staff who are responsible for managing and transferring data between different environments. This is a good practice for ensuring the competence and accountability of the staff, but it does not address the issue of obtaining consent from the data owners. Option D, verification that the hardware of the test and production environments are compatible, refers to the process of ensuring that the system or software can run smoothly and consistently on both environments. This is a good practice for ensuring the performance and functionality of the system or software, but it does not address the issue of protecting the privacy and security of the production data. References :=

• Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, Chapter 6: Cloud Security Controls
• Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA3
• DSI-04: Production / Non-Production Environments - CSF Tools - Identity Digital1
• DSI: Data Security & Information Lifecycle Management - CSF Tools - Identity Digital

The most relevant question in the cloud compliance program design phase is who owns the cloud governance strategy. Cloud governance is a method of information and technology (I&T) governance focused on accountability, defining decision rights and balancing benefit, risk and resources in an environment that embraces cloud computing. Cloud governance creates business-driven policies and principles that establish the appropriate degree of investments and control around the life cycle process for cloud computing services1. Therefore, it is essential to identify who owns the cloud governance strategy in the organization, as this will determine the roles and responsibilities, decision-making authority, reporting structure, and escalation process for cloud compliance issues. The cloud governance owner should be a senior executive who has the vision, influence, and resources to drive the cloud compliance program and align it with the business objectives2.

References:

• Building Cloud Governance From the Basics - ISACA
• [Cloud Governance | Microsoft Azure]

A SOC2 Type 2 report can best help an auditor to get information about the operating effectiveness of controls addressing privacy, availability, and confidentiality of a service organization. A SOC2 Type 2 report is an internal control report that examines the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy of a service organization’s system and data over a specified period of time, typically 3-12 months. A SOC2 Type 2 report is based on the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and provides an independent auditor’s opinion on the design and operating effectiveness of the service organization’s controls. A SOC2 Type 2 report can help an auditor to assess the risks and challenges associated with outsourcing services to a cloud provider and to verify that the provider meets the relevant compliance requirements and industry standards.12 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Auditing, page 971; SOC 2 Type II Compliance: Definition, Requirements, and Why You Need It2

 Effective operationalization of cloud security controls is highly dependent on the level of training and awareness among the staff who implement and manage these controls. Without proper understanding and awareness of security policies, procedures, and the specific controls in place, even the most sophisticated security measures can be rendered ineffective. Training ensures that the personnel are equipped with the necessary knowledge to perform their duties securely, while awareness programs help in maintaining a security-conscious culture within the organization.

References = This answer is supported by the CCAK materials which highlight the importance of training and awareness in cloud security. The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) also emphasizes the need for security education and the role it plays in the successful implementation of security controls1234.

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

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

 The organization (client) is accountable for the use of a cloud service. Accountability in cloud computing is the responsibility of cloud service providers and other parties in the cloud ecosystem to protect and properly process the data of their clients and users. However, accountability ultimately rests with the organization (client) that uses the cloud service, as it is the data owner and controller. The organization (client) has to ensure that the cloud service provider and its suppliers meet the agreed-upon service levels, security standards, and regulatory requirements. The organization (client) also has to perform due diligence and oversight on the cloud service provider and its suppliers, as well as to comply with the shared responsibility model, which defines how the security and compliance tasks and obligations are divided between the cloud service provider and the organization (client)123.

The other options are not correct. Option A, the cloud access security broker (CASB), is incorrect because a CASB is a software tool or service that acts as an intermediary between cloud users and cloud service providers, providing visibility, data security, threat protection, and compliance. A CASB does not use the cloud service, but facilitates its secure and compliant use4. Option B, the supplier, is incorrect because a supplier is a third-party entity that provides services or products to the cloud service provider, such as infrastructure, software, hardware, or support. A supplier does not use the cloud service, but supports its delivery5. Option C, the cloud service provider, is incorrect because a cloud service provider is a company that provides cloud computing services to the organization (client). A cloud service provider does not use the cloud service, but offers it to the organization (client)6. References :=

• Accountability Issues in Cloud Computing (5 Step … - Medium1
• Shared responsibility in the \uE000cloud\uE001 - Microsoft Azure2
• Who Is Responsible for Cloud Security? - Security Intelligence3
• What is CASB? - Cloud Security Alliance4
• Cloud Computing: Auditing Challenges - ISACA5
• What is Cloud Provider? - Definition from Techopedia

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

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

• ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 10-11.
• Certification authority - Wikipedia

To ensure a cloud service provider is complying with an organization’s privacy requirements, a cloud auditor should first review the organizational policies, standards, and procedures that define the privacy objectives, expectations, and responsibilities of the organization. The organizational policies, standards, and procedures should also reflect the legal and regulatory requirements that apply to the organization and its cloud service provider, as well as the best practices and guidelines for cloud privacy. The organizational policies, standards, and procedures should provide the basis for evaluating the cloud service provider’s privacy practices and controls, as well as the contractual terms and conditions that govern the cloud service agreement. The cloud auditor should compare the organizational policies, standards, and procedures with the cloud service provider’s self-disclosure statements, third-party audit reports, certifications, attestations, or other evidence of compliance123.

Reviewing the adherence to organization policies, standards, and procedures (B) is a subsequent step that the cloud auditor should perform after reviewing the organizational policies, standards, and procedures themselves. The cloud auditor should assess whether the cloud service provider is following the organization’s policies, standards, and procedures consistently and effectively, as well as whether the organization is monitoring and enforcing the compliance of the cloud service provider. The cloud auditor should also identify any gaps or deviations between the organization’s policies, standards, and procedures and the actual practices and controls of the cloud service provider123.

Reviewing the legal and regulatory requirements © is an important aspect of ensuring a cloud service provider is complying with an organization’s privacy requirements, but it is not the first step that a cloud auditor should take. The legal and regulatory requirements may vary depending on the jurisdiction, industry, or sector of the organization and its cloud service provider. The legal and regulatory requirements may also change over time or be subject to interpretation or dispute. Therefore, the cloud auditor should first review the organizational policies, standards, and procedures that incorporate and translate the legal and regulatory requirements into specific and measurable privacy objectives, expectations, and responsibilities for both parties123.

Reviewing the IT infrastructure (D) is not a relevant or sufficient step for ensuring a cloud service provider is complying with an organization’s privacy requirements. The IT infrastructure refers to the hardware, software, network, and other components that support the delivery of cloud services. The IT infrastructure is only one aspect of cloud security and privacy, and it may not be accessible or visible to the cloud auditor or the organization. The cloud auditor should focus on reviewing the privacy practices and controls that are implemented by the cloud service provider at different layers of the cloud service model (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS), as well as the contractual terms and conditions that define the privacy rights and obligations of both parties123. References :=

• Cloud Audits and Compliance: What You Need To Know - Linford & Company LLP
• Trust in the Cloud in audits of cloud services - PwC
• Cloud Compliance & Regulations Resources | Google Cloud

The shift-left concept of code release cycles is a practice that aims to integrate testing, quality, and performance evaluation early in the software development life cycle, often before any code is written. This helps to find and prevent defects, improve quality, and enable faster delivery of secure software. One of the key aspects of the shift-left concept is the incorporation of automation to identify and address software code problems early, such as using continuous integration, continuous delivery, and continuous testing tools. Automation can help reduce manual errors, speed up feedback loops, and increase efficiency and reliability123

The other options are not correct because:

• Option A is not correct because large entities with slower release cadences and geographically dispersed systems are more likely to face challenges in adopting the shift-left concept, as they may have more complex and legacy systems, dependencies, and processes that hinder agility and collaboration. The shift-left concept requires a culture of continuous improvement, experimentation, and learning that may not be compatible with traditional or siloed organizations4
• Option C is not correct because a waterfall model is the opposite of the shift-left concept, as it involves sequential phases of development, testing, and deployment that are performed late in the software development life cycle. A waterfall model does not allow for early detection and correction of defects, feedback, or changes, and can result in higher costs, delays, and risks5
• Option D is not correct because maturity of start-up entities with high-iteration to low-volume code commits is not a sign of the shift-left concept, but rather a sign of the agile or lean software development methodologies. These methodologies focus on delivering value to customers by delivering working software in short iterations or sprints, with frequent feedback and adaptation. While these methodologies can support the shift-left concept by enabling faster testing and delivery cycles, they are not equivalent or synonymous with it6

References: 1: AWS. What is DevSecOps? - Developer Security Operations Explained - AWS. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 2: Dynatrace. Shift left vs shift right: A DevOps mystery solved - Dynatrace news. [Online]. Available: 2. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 3: BMC Software. Shift Left Testing: What, Why & How To Shift Left – BMC Software | Blogs. [Online]. Available: 3. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 4: GitLab. How to shift left with continuous integration | GitLab. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 5: DZone. DevOps and The Shift-Left Principle - DZone. [Online]. Available: 5. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 6: Devopedia. Shift Left - Devopedia. [Online]. Available: 6. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023].

According to the ISACA CCAK Study Guide, the auditor should report the findings to the management of the organization being audited, as they are the primary stakeholders and decision makers for the cloud service. The management is responsible for ensuring that the cloud service meets the requirements and expectations of the community, as well as complying with any relevant laws and regulations. The auditor should also communicate the findings to the cloud service provider, as they are the secondary stakeholders and service providers for the cloud service. The cloud service provider should be aware of any issues or gaps identified by the auditor and work with the management to resolve them. The auditor should not report the findings to the public, shareholders, or interested parties, as they are not directly involved in the cloud service or its governance. The auditor should respect the confidentiality and privacy of the community and its data, and only disclose the findings to those who have a legitimate need to know. References :=

• ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 971
• ISACA, Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam, 2021, p. 36

Regression testing is a type of software testing that confirms that a recent program or code change has not adversely affected existing features1 It involves re-running functional and non-functional tests to ensure that previously developed and tested software still performs as expected after a change2 Regression testing is suitable for large code sets in environments where time to completion is critical, as it can help detect and prevent defects, improve quality, and enable faster delivery of secure software. Regression testing can be automated to reduce manual errors, speed up feedback loops, and increase efficiency and reliability3

The other options are not correct because:

• Option A is not correct because parallel testing is a type of software testing that involves testing multiple applications or subsystems concurrently to reduce the test time4 Parallel testing does not necessarily ensure the integration of security testing, as it depends on the quality and coverage of the test cases and scenarios used for each application or subsystem. Parallel testing may also introduce challenges such as synchronization, coordination, and communication among the testers and developers5
• Option B is not correct because full application stack unit testing is a type of software testing that involves testing individual units or components of an application in isolation to verify their functionality, logic, interfaces, and performance6 Full application stack unit testing does not ensure the integration of security testing, as it does not consider the interactions and dependencies among the units or components, or the behavior of the application as a whole. Unit testing is typically performed by developers at an early stage of the software development life cycle, and may not cover all the security aspects or requirements of the application7
• Option C is not correct because functional verification is a type of software testing that involves verifying that the software meets the specified requirements and satisfies the user needs. Functional verification does not ensure the integration of security testing, as it does not focus on how the software is designed or configured, or how it handles malicious or unexpected inputs. Functional verification is typically performed by quality assurance teams at a later stage of the software development life cycle, and may not detect all the security vulnerabilities or risks of the software.

References: 1: Wikipedia. Regression testing - Wikipedia. [Online]. Available: 3. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 2: Katalon. What is Regression Testing? Definition, Tools, Examples - Katalon. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 3: BMC Software. Shift Left Testing: What, Why & How To Shift Left – BMC Software | Blogs. [Online]. Available: 3. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 4: Guru99. What is Parallel Testing? with Example - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 5: LambdaTest. Parallel Testing In Selenium WebDriver | LambdaTest Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 6: Guru99. What is Unit Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 7: Software Testing Help. Unit Testing Vs Integration Testing: Difference Between These Two - SoftwareTestingHelp.com Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. : Guru99. What is Functional Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. : Software Testing Help. Functional Testing Vs Non-Functional Testing - SoftwareTestingHelp.com Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023].

In multi-cloud environments, organizations use cloud services from multiple providers. This can lead to challenges in maintaining visibility and control over the data and services due to the varying management tools, processes, and security controls across different providers. The complexity of managing multiple service models and the reliance on different cloud service providers can reduce an organization’s ability to monitor and control its resources effectively, thus increasing the risk of reduced visibility and control.

References = The information aligns with the principles outlined in the CCAK materials, which emphasize the unique challenges of auditing the cloud, including ensuring the right controls for confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility, and mitigating risks such as those associated with multi-cloud environments12.

 An auditor examining a cloud service provider’s SLA should be most concerned about whether the agreement excludes any operational matters that are material to the service operations, as this could indicate a lack of transparency, accountability, and quality assurance from the provider. Operational matters are the aspects of the cloud service that affect its functionality, performance, availability, reliability, security, and compliance. Examples of operational matters include service scope, roles and responsibilities, service levels and metrics, monitoring and reporting mechanisms, incident and problem management, change management, backup and recovery, data protection and privacy, and termination and exit clauses12. These matters are material to the service operations if they have a significant impact on the achievement of the service objectives and expectations of the cloud customer. The auditor should verify that the SLA covers all the relevant and material operational matters in a clear and comprehensive manner, and that the provider adheres to the SLA terms and conditions.

The other options are not the most concerning for the auditor. Option A is a desirable feature of an SLA, but not a concern if it is missing. Option B is an unrealistic expectation of an SLA, as sourcing and financial matters are usually essential in meeting the SLA. Option C is a specific example of an operational matter that is material to the service operations, but not the only one that should be included in the SLA. References:

• Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist
• Cloud Computing: Agencies Need to Incorporate Key Practices to Ensure Effective Performance

The Cloud Octagon Model was developed to support organizations’ risk assessment methodology. Risk assessment is the process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks associated with a cloud computing environment. The Cloud Octagon Model provides a logical approach to holistically deal with security aspects involved in moving to the cloud by introducing eight dimensions that need to be considered: procurement, IT governance, architecture, development and engineering, service providers, risk processes, data classification, and country. The model aims to reduce risks, improve effectiveness, manageability, and security of cloud solutions12.

References:

• Cloud Octagon Model | CSA
• Cloud Security Alliance Releases Cloud Octagon Model

 Supply chain agreements between a cloud service provider and cloud customers should, at a minimum, include audits, assessments, and independent verification of compliance certifications with agreement terms. This is because cloud services involve multiple parties in the supply chain, such as cloud providers, sub-providers, brokers, carriers, and auditors. Each party may have different roles and responsibilities in delivering the cloud services and ensuring their quality, security, and compliance. Therefore, it is important for the cloud customers to have visibility and assurance of the performance and compliance of the cloud providers and their sub-providers. Audits, assessments, and independent verification of compliance certifications are methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls and processes implemented by the cloud providers and their sub-providers to meet the agreement terms. These methods can help the cloud customers to identify any gaps or risks in the supply chain and to take corrective actions if needed. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain COM-04: Audit Assurance & Compliance, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to conduct audits and assessments of cloud services and data to verify compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks, contractual obligations, and industry standards."12 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 3: Cloud Compliance Program, page 551; Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.02

Role-based access control (RBAC) is a method of restricting access to resources based on the roles of individual users within an organization1 RBAC can help ensure adequate restriction on the number of people who can access the pipeline production environment, as it can limit the permissions and actions that each user can perform on the pipeline resources, such as code, secrets, environments, etc. RBAC can also help enforce the principle of least privilege, which states that users should only have the minimum level of access required to perform their tasks2

The other options are not correct because:

• Option A is not correct because ensuring segregation of duties in the production and development pipelines is not sufficient to ensure adequate restriction on the number of people who can access the pipeline production environment. Segregation of duties is a practice that aims to prevent fraud, errors, or conflicts of interest by dividing responsibilities among different people or teams3 However, segregation of duties does not necessarily limit the number of people who can access the pipeline resources, as it depends on how the roles and permissions are defined and assigned. Segregation of duties is also more relevant for preventing unauthorized changes or deployments to the production environment, rather than restricting access to it4
• Option B is not correct because periodic review of the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline audit logs to identify any access violations is not a proactive measure to ensure adequate restriction on the number of people who can access the pipeline production environment. Audit logs are records of events or activities that occur within a system or process5 Audit logs can help monitor and detect any unauthorized or suspicious access to the pipeline resources, but they cannot prevent or restrict such access in the first place. Audit logs are also dependent on the frequency and quality of the review process, which may not be timely or effective enough to mitigate the risks of access violations6
• Option D is not correct because separation of production and development pipelines is not a direct way to ensure adequate restriction on the number of people who can access the pipeline production environment. Separation of production and development pipelines is a practice that aims to isolate and protect the production environment from any potential errors, bugs, or vulnerabilities that may arise from the development process. However, separation of pipelines does not automatically imply restriction of access, as it depends on how the roles and permissions are configured for each pipeline. Separation of pipelines may also introduce challenges such as synchronization, coordination, and communication among the pipeline teams and stakeholders.

References: 1: Wikipedia. Role-based access control - Wikipedia. [Online]. Available: 1. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 2: Microsoft Learn. Set pipeline permissions - Azure Pipelines | Microsoft Learn. [Online]. Available: 1. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 3: Investopedia. Segregation Of Duties Definition - Investopedia.com Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 4: Cider Security. Insufficient PBAC (Pipeline-Based Access Controls) - Cider Security Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 5: Wikipedia. Audit trail - Wikipedia. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 6: Microsoft Learn. Securing Azure Pipelines - Azure Pipelines | Microsoft Learn. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. : AWS DevOps Blog. How to implement CI/CD with AWS CodePipeline - AWS DevOps Blog | Amazon Web Services Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. : LambdaTest. What Is Parallel Testing? with Example - LambdaTest Blog. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023].

The control audit frequency for an organization’s business continuity management and operational resilience strategy should be conducted annually. This frequency is considered appropriate for most organizations to ensure that their business continuity plans and operational resilience strategies remain effective and up-to-date with the current risk landscape. Conducting these audits annually aligns with the best practices of reviewing and updating business continuity plans to adapt to new threats, changes in the business environment, and lessons learned from past incidents. References = The annual audit frequency is supported by industry standards and guidelines that emphasize the importance of regular reviews to maintain operational resilience. These include resources from professional bodies and industry groups that outline the need for periodic assessments to ensure the effectiveness of business continuity and resilience strategies

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

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

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

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

• Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam
• Cloud Risk—10 Principles and a Framework for Assessment - ISACA