CCAK Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge Questions and Answers

 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 …

 Metrics around Platform as a Service (PaaS) development environments are frequently immature, as PaaS is a relatively new and evolving cloud service model that offers various tools and platforms for developing, testing, deploying, and managing cloud applications. PaaS metrics are often not well-defined, standardized, or consistent across different providers and platforms, and may not capture the full value and performance of PaaS services. PaaS metrics may also be difficult to measure, monitor, and compare, as they depend on various factors, such as the type, complexity, and quality of the applications, the level of customization and integration, the usage patterns and demand, and the security and compliance requirements. Therefore, PaaS metrics may not provide sufficient insight or assurance to cloud customers and auditors on the effectiveness, efficiency, reliability, and security of PaaS services12.

References:

Cloud Computing Service Metrics Description - NIST

Cloud KPIs You Need to Measure Success - VMware Blogs

 Cloud service providers offer application programming interfaces (APIs) to encourage clients to extend the cloud platform. APIs are sets of rules and protocols that define how different software components or applications can communicate and interact with each other. APIs enable clients to access the cloud services and data, integrate them with their own applications or systems, and customize or enhance their functionality and performance. APIs also allow clients to leverage the cloud platform’s features and capabilities, such as scalability, reliability, security, and analytics.12

Some examples of cloud service providers that offer APIs are Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services (AWS), IBM Cloud, and Oracle Cloud. These providers offer various types of APIs for different purposes and domains, such as compute, storage, database, networking, artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, internet of things, and blockchain. These APIs help clients to build, deploy, manage, and optimize their cloud applications and solutions.34567

References := What is an API? - Definition from WhatIs.com1; What is a Cloud API? - Definition from Techopedia2; Cloud APIs | Google Cloud3; Cloud Services - Deploy Cloud Apps & APIs | Microsoft Azure4; AWS Application Programming Interface (API) | AWS5; IBM Cloud API Docs6; Oracle Cloud Infrastructure API Documentation

Understanding the organization’s past is crucial for individuals in charge of cloud compliance, particularly to address any open findings from previous external audits. This historical perspective is essential because it allows the compliance team to identify recurring issues, understand the context of past non-compliances, and ensure that corrective actions have been taken and are effective. It also helps in anticipating potential future compliance challenges based on past trends and patterns.

References = The importance of understanding an organization’s past for cloud compliance is supported by best practices in cloud security and compliance, which emphasize the need for continuous improvement and learning from past experiences to enhance security measures123.

According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the auditor should review the relationship between the cloud service provider and its service provider to help direct and estimate the level of effort and analysis the auditor should apply1. The auditor should understand the nature and scope of the services provided by the service provider, the contractual obligations and service level agreements, the security and compliance requirements, and the monitoring and reporting mechanisms. The auditor should also assess the risks and controls associated with the service provider, and determine if additional audit procedures are needed to obtain sufficient assurance.

The other options are not the best approach for the auditor. Option A is too strict and might not be feasible or necessary, depending on the type and level of services provided by the service provider. Option C is too lax and might overlook significant risks and gaps in the cloud service. Option D is too narrow and might ignore the impact of the service provider on the cloud customer’s business context. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 13-14.

 In the context of Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), a vulnerability assessment will scan virtual machines to identify vulnerabilities in both operating system and application infrastructure contained within the customer’s instances. IaaS is a cloud service model that provides customers with access to virtualized computing resources, such as servers, storage, and networks, hosted by a cloud service provider (CSP). The customer is responsible for installing, configuring, and maintaining the operating system and application software on the virtual machines, while the CSP is responsible for managing the underlying physical infrastructure. Therefore, a vulnerability assessment will scan the customer’s instances to detect any weaknesses or misconfigurations in the operating system and application layers that may expose them to potential threats. A vulnerability assessment can help the customer to prioritize and remediate the identified vulnerabilities, and to comply with relevant security standards and regulations12.

References:

Azure Security Control - Vulnerability Management | Microsoft Learn

How to Implement Enterprise Vulnerability Assessment - Gartner

Risk appetite and budget constraints have the most substantial impact on how aggressive or conservative the cloud approach of an organization will be. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Budget constraints are the limitations on the financial resources that an organization can allocate to its cloud initiatives. Both factors influence the organization’s strategic decisions on which cloud service models, deployment models, providers, and solutions to adopt, as well as the level of security, compliance, and performance to achieve. An organization with a high risk appetite and a large budget may opt for a more aggressive cloud approach, such as moving critical applications and data to a public cloud provider, while an organization with a low risk appetite and a small budget may opt for a more conservative cloud approach, such as keeping sensitive information on-premises or using a private cloud provider12.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 17-18.

CSA, Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, p. 63.

Identity and access management (IAM) and data protection are the areas that should be reviewed when auditing a public cloud, as they are the key aspects of cloud security and compliance that affect both the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. IAM and data protection refer to the methods and techniques that ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and resources in the cloud environment. IAM involves the use of credentials, policies, roles, permissions, and tokens to verify the identity and access rights of users or devices. Data protection involves the use of encryption, backup, recovery, deletion, and retention to protect data from unauthorized access, modification, loss, or disclosure123.

Patching and configuration (A) are not the areas that should be reviewed when auditing a public cloud, as they are not the key aspects of cloud security and compliance that affect both the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. Patching and configuration refer to the processes and practices that ensure the security, reliability, and performance of the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. Patching involves the use of updates or fixes to address vulnerabilities, bugs, errors, or exploits that may compromise or affect the functionality of the cloud components. Configuration involves the use of settings or parameters to customize or optimize the functionality of the cloud components. Patching and configuration are mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. The cloud service customer has limited or no access or control over these aspects123.

Vulnerability management and cyber security reviews (B) are not the areas that should be reviewed when auditing a public cloud, as they are not specific or measurable aspects of cloud security and compliance that can be easily audited or tested. Vulnerability management and cyber security reviews refer to the processes and practices that identify, assess, treat, monitor, and report on the risks that affect the security posture of an organization or a domain. Vulnerability management involves the use of tools or techniques to scan, analyze, prioritize, remediate, or mitigate vulnerabilities that may expose an organization or a domain to threats or attacks. Cyber security reviews involve the use of tools or techniques to evaluate, measure, benchmark, or improve the security capabilities or maturity of an organization or a domain. Vulnerability management and cyber security reviews are general or broad terms that encompass various aspects of cloud security and compliance, such as IAM, data protection, patching, configuration, etc. Therefore, they are not specific or measurable areas that can be audited or tested individually123.

Source code reviews and hypervisor (D) are not the areas that should be reviewed when auditing a public cloud, as they are not relevant or accessible aspects of cloud security and compliance for most cloud service customers. Source code reviews refer to the processes and practices that examine the source code of software applications or systems to identify errors, bugs, vulnerabilities, or inefficiencies that may affect their quality, functionality, or security. Hypervisor refers to the software that allows the creation and management of virtual machines on a physical server. Source code reviews and hypervisor are mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the software applications or systems that deliver cloud services. The cloud service customer has no access or control over these aspects123. References :=

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

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

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

According to the definition of regression testing, it 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 If the software does not perform as expected, it is called a regression. Therefore, the most important goal of regression testing is to ensure new releases do not impact previous stable features.

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because the expected outputs are provided by the new features is not the goal of regression testing, but rather the goal of functional testing or acceptance testing. These types of testing aim to verify that the software meets the specified requirements and satisfies the user needs. Regression testing, on the other hand, focuses on checking that the existing features are not broken by the new features3

Option B is not correct because the system can handle a high number of users is not the goal of regression testing, but rather the goal of performance testing or load testing. These types of testing aim to evaluate the behavior and responsiveness of the software under various workloads and conditions. Regression testing, on the other hand, focuses on checking that the software functionality and quality are not degraded by code changes4

Option C is not correct because the system can be restored after a technical issue is not the goal of regression testing, but rather the goal of recovery testing or disaster recovery testing. These types of testing aim to assess the ability of the software to recover from failures or disasters and resume normal operations. Regression testing, on the other hand, focuses on checking that the software does not introduce new failures or defects due to code changes5

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: Guru99. What is Functional Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 4: Guru99. What is Performance Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 5: Guru99. What is Recovery Testing? with Example - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023].

Establishing ownership and accountability most enhances the internal stakeholder decision-making process for the remediation of risks identified from an organization’s cloud compliance program. Cloud compliance refers to the principle that cloud-delivered systems must comply with the standards required by their customers. Compliance requirements may include data protection regulations such as HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, ISO/IEC 27001, NIST, and SOX. A cloud compliance program is a set of policies, procedures, and controls that help an organization to achieve and maintain compliance with these requirements12.

A cloud compliance program involves identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and mitigating the risks associated with using cloud services. To effectively manage these risks, an organization needs to establish ownership and accountability for each risk and its remediation. Ownership and accountability mean assigning clear roles and responsibilities to the internal stakeholders who are involved in the cloud compliance program, such as the cloud service provider, the cloud customer, the cloud users, the cloud auditors, and the cloud regulators. By doing so, an organization can ensure that the internal stakeholders have the authority, resources, and incentives to make timely and informed decisions for the remediation of risks123.

The other options are not the most effective ways to enhance the internal stakeholder decision-making process for the remediation of risks. Option A, automating risk monitoring and reporting processes, is a good practice for improving the efficiency and accuracy of the cloud compliance program, but it does not address the issue of who is responsible for making decisions based on the monitoring and reporting results. Option B, reporting emerging threats to senior stakeholders, is a good practice for increasing the awareness and visibility of the cloud compliance program, but it does not address the issue of how to prioritize and respond to the emerging threats. Option D, monitoring key risk indicators (KRIs) for multi-cloud environments, is a good practice for measuring and tracking the performance and effectiveness of the cloud compliance program, but it does not address the issue of how to align and coordinate the decisions across different cloud environments123. References :=

Cloud Compliance Frameworks: What You Need to Know1

Cloud Compliance: What It Is + 8 Best Practices for Improving It2

Cloud Computing: Auditing Challenges - ISACA

In a multi-level supply chain structure where cloud service provider A relies on other sub cloud service providers, the provider should ensure that any compliance requirements relevant to the provider are passed to the sub cloud service providers. This is because the sub cloud service providers may have access to or process the provider’s data or resources, and therefore need to comply with the same standards and regulations as the provider. Passing the compliance requirements to the sub cloud service providers can also help the provider to monitor and audit the sub cloud service providers’ performance and security, and to mitigate any risks or issues that may arise.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 85-86.

CSA, Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, p. 7-8

Customer management interfaces are the web portals or applications that allow customers to access and manage their cloud services, such as provisioning, monitoring, billing, etc. These interfaces are exposed to the public Internet and may be vulnerable to attacks such as phishing, malware, denial-of-service, or credential theft. If an attacker compromises a customer management interface, they can potentially access and manipulate the customer’s cloud resources, data, and configurations, leading to computing and data compromise for customers. This can result in data breaches, service disruptions, unauthorized transactions, or other malicious activities.

References:

Cloud Computing - Security Benefits and Risks | PPT - SlideShare1, slide 10

Cloud Security Risks: The Top 8 According To ENISA - CloudTweaks2, section on Management Interface Compromise

Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, section 2.3.2.1 : https://www.isaca.org/-/media/info/ccak/ccak-study-guide.pdf

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.

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

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

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

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Understanding the Shared Responsibilities Model in Cloud Services - ISACA

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

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

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

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

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Cloud security shared responsibility model - NCSC

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

References:

STAR Registry | CSA

STAR | CSA

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

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

Periodic documentation review is a critical process that helps organizations identify control gaps and shortcomings, particularly in the context of cloud computing. This process involves regularly examining the documentation of processes, controls, and policies to ensure they are up-to-date and effective. It allows an organization to verify that the controls are operating as intended and to discover any areas where the controls may not fully address the organization’s requirements or the unique risks associated with cloud services. By conducting these reviews, organizations can maintain compliance with relevant regulations and standards, and ensure continuous improvement in their cloud security posture.

References = The significance of periodic documentation review is highlighted in cloud auditing and security best practices, as outlined by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and the Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) program12. These resources emphasize the importance of regular reviews as part of a comprehensive cloud governance and compliance strategy.

 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 critical finding of an application security and DevOps audit would be that the application architecture and configurations did not consider security measures. This finding would indicate that the application is vulnerable to various threats and attacks, such as data breaches, unauthorized access, injection, cross-site scripting, denial-of-service, etc. This finding would also imply that the application does not comply with the security standards and best practices for cloud services, such as ISO/IEC 27017:20151, CSA Cloud Controls Matrix2, or NIST SP 800-1463. This finding would require immediate remediation and improvement of the application security posture, as well as the implementation of security controls and tests throughout the DevOps process.

Certifications with global security standards specific to cloud are not reviewed, and the impact of noted findings are not assessed (A) would be a significant finding of an application security and DevOps audit, but not the most critical one. This finding would indicate that the organization is not aware or informed of the security requirements and expectations for cloud services, as well as the gaps or issues that may affect their compliance or performance. This finding would require regular review and analysis of the certifications with global security standards specific to cloud, such as ISO/IEC 270014, CSA STAR Certification, or FedRAMP Authorization, as well as the assessment of the impact of noted findings on the organization’s risk profile and business objectives.

Outsourced cloud service interruption, breach, or loss of stored data occurred at the cloud service provider (B) would be a serious finding of an application security and DevOps audit, but not the most critical one. This finding would indicate that the cloud service provider failed to ensure the availability, confidentiality, and integrity of the cloud services and data that they provide to the organization. This finding would require investigation and resolution of the root cause and impact of the incident, as well as the implementation of preventive and corrective measures to avoid recurrence. This finding would also require review and verification of the contractual terms and conditions between the organization and the cloud service provider, as well as the service level agreements (SLAs) and recovery time objectives (RTOs) for the cloud services.

The organization is not using a unified framework to integrate cloud compliance with regulatory requirements © would be an important finding of an application security and DevOps audit, but not the most critical one. This finding would indicate that the organization is not following a consistent and systematic approach to manage and monitor its cloud compliance with regulatory requirements, such as GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, etc. This finding would require adoption and implementation of a unified framework to integrate cloud compliance with regulatory requirements, such as COBIT, NIST Cybersecurity Framework, or CIS Controls, as well as the alignment and integration of these frameworks with the DevOps process.

 Termination for convenience is a contractual provision that allows one party to unilaterally terminate the contract without the fault of the other party. This type of termination does not require the terminating party to prove that the other party has failed to meet their obligations or is at fault in any way. Instead, it is often used to end a contract when it is no longer in the best interest of the terminating party to continue, for reasons that may include changes in business strategy, financial considerations, or other external factors.

References = The concept of termination for convenience is commonly found in various contractual agreements and is a standard clause in government contracts, allowing the government to terminate a contract when it is deemed to be in the public interest. While the search did not yield specific CCAK documents detailing this type of termination, it is a well-established principle in contract law and is likely covered under the broader topic of contract management within the CCAK curriculum.

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 …

In the context of cloud operationalization, “below the waterline” refers to the aspects of cloud services that are managed and controlled by the cloud service provider (CSP) rather than the customer. This analogy is often used to describe the shared responsibility model in cloud computing, where the CSP is responsible for the infrastructure’s security and stability, akin to the submerged part of an iceberg that supports the structure above water. The customer, on the other hand, is responsible for managing the controls and security measures “above the waterline,” which include the applications, data, and access management they deploy in the cloud environment.

References = The information provided is based on standard cloud computing models and the shared responsibility concept, which is a fundamental principle discussed in cloud auditing and security literature, including the CCAK curriculum and related resources1.

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

References:

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

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

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

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate 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 audit. The management is responsible for ensuring that the cloud service provider meets the contractual obligations and service level agreements, as well as the security and compliance requirements of the community cloud. The auditor should also communicate with the cloud service provider and other relevant parties, such as regulators or customers, as appropriate, but the final report should be addressed to the management of the organization being audited. References: ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 17

Traditional cloud compliance assurance approaches such as SOC2 attestations have the main limitation of providing a point-in-time snapshot of an organization’s compliance posture. This means that they only reflect the state of the organization’s security and compliance controls at a specific date or period, which may not be representative of the current or future state. Cloud environments are dynamic and constantly changing, and so are the threats and risks that affect them. Therefore, relying on traditional cloud compliance assurance approaches may not provide sufficient or timely assurance that the organization’s cloud services and data are adequately protected and compliant with the relevant requirements and standards.12

To overcome this limitation, some organizations adopt continuous cloud compliance assurance approaches, such as continuous monitoring, auditing, and reporting. These approaches enable the organization to collect, analyze, and report on the security and compliance status of its cloud environment in near real-time, using automated tools and processes. Continuous cloud compliance assurance approaches can help the organization to identify and respond to any changes, issues, or incidents that may affect its cloud security and compliance posture, and to maintain a high level of trust and transparency with its stakeholders, customers, and regulators.34

References := What is SOC 2? Complete Guide to SOC 2 Reports | CSA1; Guidance on cloud security assessment and authorization - ITSP.50.105 - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security2; Continuous Compliance: The Future of Cloud Security | CloudCheckr3; Continuous Compliance: How to Automate Cloud Security Compliance4

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

When reviewing a third-party agreement with a cloud service provider, the greatest concern regarding customer data privacy is the return or destruction of information. This is because customer data may contain sensitive or personal information that needs to be protected from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. The cloud service provider should have clear and transparent policies and procedures for returning or destroying customer data upon termination of the agreement or upon customer request. The cloud service provider should also provide evidence of the return or destruction of customer data, such as certificates of destruction, audit logs, or reports. The return or destruction of information should comply with applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The cloud service provider should also ensure that any subcontractors or affiliates that have access to customer data follow the same policies and procedures12.

References:

Cloud Services Agreements – Protecting Your Hosted Environment

CSP agreements, price lists, and offers - Partner Center

 The correct answer is C. Data input and output integrity routines (i.e., reconciliation and edit checks) are controls that can be implemented for application interfaces and databases to prevent manual or systematic processing errors, corruption of data, or misuse. This is stated in the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) control AIS-03: Data Integrity123, which is part of the Application & Interface Security 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 refers to the CCM control AIS-02: Customer Access Requirements2, which addresses the security, contractual, and regulatory requirements for customer access to data, assets, and information systems. Option B refers to the CCM control AIS-04: Data Security / Integrity2, which establishes policies and procedures to support data security across multiple system interfaces, jurisdictions, and business functions. Option D refers to the CCM control AIS-01: Application Security2, which requires applications and programming interfaces (APIs) to be designed, developed, deployed, and tested in accordance with leading industry standards (e.g., OWASP for web applications). References :=

Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Assurance Frameworks

What is the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)? - Cloud Security Alliance4

AIS-03: Data Integrity - CSF Tools - Identity Digital1

AIS: Application & Interface Security - CSF Tools - Identity Digital2

PR.DS-6: Integrity checking mechanisms are used to verify software … - CSF Tools - Identity Digital

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

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

 Contracts and SLAs are legal documents that define the roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations of both the cloud service provider (CSP) and the cloud customer. They also specify the terms and conditions for service delivery, performance, availability, security, compliance, data protection, incident response, dispute resolution, liability, and termination. An auditor should review these documents to assess the alignment of the CSP’s services with the customer’s business requirements and risk appetite, as well as to identify any gaps or inconsistencies that may pose legal risks. References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 35-36

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, GRM-01: Contracts and SLAs

 When an organization is moving to the cloud, the first thing to define is the goals of the migration. This is because the goals will guide all subsequent decisions and strategies. Defining clear goals helps in understanding what the organization wants to achieve with cloud migration, whether it’s cost savings, scalability, improved performance, or something else. These goals are essential for aligning the migration with the business objectives and for setting the direction for the cloud strategy.

References = The importance of defining the goals of cloud migration is supported by the resources provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA in their Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) materials12. These resources emphasize the need for a clear understanding of the objectives and benefits expected from moving to the cloud, which is foundational before delving into specifics such as SLAs, requirements, or provider evaluation criteria.

The Cloud Controls Matrix (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 CCM provides guidance on which security controls should be implemented by which actor within the cloud supply chain, and maps the controls to industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks. The CCM can help cloud customers to assess the security posture of their cloud service providers, document their own responsibilities and requirements, and establish a baseline for cloud security assurance and compliance. References :=

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA1

What is the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)? - Cloud Security Alliance2

Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Assurance Frameworks

A RACI chart is a tool used to clarify the roles and responsibilities in processes, projects, or operations. In the context of cloud compliance, documenting these responsibilities in a RACI chart ensures that all parties within the enterprise are aware of their specific obligations regarding compliance with laws and regulations. This helps in creating a clear, organized view of how each part of the organization contributes to overall compliance, facilitating better coordination and accountability.

References = The answer is informed by general best practices in cloud compliance and governance, which recommend the use of RACI charts or similar tools to delineate responsibilities clearly. While I can’t reference specific documents from the CCAK or related resources, these practices are widely accepted in the field of cloud security and compliance.

 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

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.

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

The other options are incorrect because:

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

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

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

References:

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

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

Cloud Security Alliance Releases New Cloud Controls Matrix Auditing Guidelines

The cloud service provider is responsible for the patching of the hypervisor layer in all three cloud deployment models (IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS). The hypervisor layer is the software that allows the creation and management of virtual machines on a physical server. The hypervisor layer is part of the cloud infrastructure, which is owned and operated by the cloud service provider. The cloud service provider is responsible for ensuring that the hypervisor layer is secure, reliable, and up to date with the latest patches and updates. The cloud service provider should also monitor and report on the status and performance of the hypervisor layer, as well as any issues or incidents that may affect it.

The cloud service customer is not responsible for the patching of the hypervisor layer, as they do not have access or control over the cloud infrastructure. The cloud service customer only has access and control over the cloud resources and services that they consume from the cloud service provider, such as virtual machines, storage, databases, applications, etc. The cloud service customer is responsible for ensuring that their own cloud resources and services are secure, compliant, and updated with the latest patches and updates.

The patching of the hypervisor layer is not a shared responsibility between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, as it is solely under the domain of the cloud service provider. The shared responsibility model in cloud computing refers to the division of security and compliance responsibilities between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, depending on the type of cloud deployment model. For example, in IaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing the physical infrastructure, network, and hypervisor layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own operating systems, applications, data, etc. In PaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing everything up to the platform layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own applications and data. In SaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing everything up to the application layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own data and user access.

Patching on hypervisor layer is required, as it is essential for maintaining the security, reliability, and performance of the cloud infrastructure. Patching on hypervisor layer can help prevent vulnerabilities, bugs, errors, or exploits that may compromise or affect the functionality of the virtual machines or other cloud resources and services. Patching on hypervisor layer can also help improve or enhance the features or capabilities of the hypervisor software or hardware. References :=

Patching process - AWS Prescriptive Guidance

What is a Hypervisor in Cloud Computing and Its Types? - Simplilearn

In all three cloud deployment models, (IaaS, PaaS, and … - Exam4Training

Reference Architecture: App Layering | Citrix Tech Zone

Hypervisor - GeeksforGeeks

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CSA STAR Certification is based on criteria outlined in the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) in addition to ISO/IEC 27001 implementation. ISO/IEC 27001 is an international standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS). The CSA STAR Certification is a third-party independent assessment of the security of a cloud service provider, which demonstrates the alignment of the provider’s ISMS with the CCM best practices. The CSA STAR Certification has three levels: Level 1 (STAR Certification), Level 2 (STAR Attestation), and Level 3 (STAR Continuous Monitoring).1 [2][2] References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Auditing, page 971; CSA STAR Certification, Overview[2][2]

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 customers need to ensure that the cloud service provider meets the agreed-upon service levels, security standards, and regulatory requirements. Audits, assessments, and independent verification can provide evidence of the cloud service provider’s compliance and performance and help identify any gaps or risks that need to be addressed. This is also stated in the Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.012, which is a reference document for cloud customers and providers to analyze and negotiate cloud service agreements.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option A, regulatory guidelines impacting the cloud customer, refers to the legal and ethical obligations that the cloud customer has to comply with when using cloud services, such as data protection, privacy, and security laws. These guidelines may vary depending on the jurisdiction, industry, and type of data involved. Option C, policies and procedures of the cloud customer, refers to the internal rules and processes that the cloud customer has to follow when using cloud services, such as data governance, access management, and incident response. Option D, the organizational chart of the provider, refers to the structure and hierarchy of the cloud service provider’s organization, such as the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of its employees, departments, and units.

References :=

Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.01

Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements V2.0| Object … - OMG3

Supply chain agreements between CSP and cloud customers should …4

Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 3

One possible reason why the results of third-party audits and certification should be relied on when analyzing and assessing the cybersecurity risks in the cloud is to contrast the risk generated by the loss of control. When an organization moves its data and processes to the cloud, it inevitably loses some degree of control over its security and compliance posture, as it depends on the cloud service provider (CSP) to implement and maintain adequate security measures and controls1 This loss of control can increase the organization’s exposure to various cybersecurity risks, such as data breaches, unauthorized access, denial of service, malware infection, etc2

To mitigate these risks, the organization needs to have a clear understanding of the security and compliance level of the CSP, as well as the shared responsibility model that defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties3 Third-party audits and certification can provide some level of assurance that the CSP meets certain standards and requirements related to security and compliance, such as ISO/IEC 27001, CSA STAR, SOC 2, etc. These audits and certification can also help the organization compare and contrast the security posture of different CSPs in the market, as well as identify any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed or compensated.

Therefore, relying on the results of third-party audits and certification can help the organization contrast the risk generated by the loss of control in the cloud, and make informed decisions about selecting and managing its cloud services.

References: 1: Security in the Cloud: Are Audits and Certifications Really Enough?3 2: Understanding The Third-Party Impact On Cybersecurity Risk - Forbes2 3: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance : Reducing Cybersecurity Security Risk From and to Third Parties - ISACA1 : Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing

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

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

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 

 The management review of the information security framework is an activity that typically occurs outside the regular scope of information security monitoring. This review is a strategic exercise that involves evaluating the overall direction, effectiveness, and alignment of the information security program with the organization’s objectives and risk appetite. It is more about governance and ensuring that the security framework is up-to-date and capable of protecting the organization against current and emerging threats. This contrasts with the operational nature of security monitoring, which focuses on the day-to-day oversight of security controls and the detection of security events.

References = The answer provided is based on general knowledge of information security practices and the typical separation between strategic management activities and operational monitoring tasks. Direct references from the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) are not included here, as my current capabilities do not allow me to access or verify content from external documents or websites. However, the concept of separating strategic management reviews from operational monitoring is a well-established practice in information security management.

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

 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

 The greatest concern to the auditor should be that the customer cannot monitor its cloud subscription on its own and must rely on the provider for monitoring purposes. This situation can lead to a lack of transparency and control over the security and compliance posture of the cloud services being used. It is crucial for customers to have the ability to independently monitor their systems to ensure that they are secure and compliant with relevant regulations and standards.

References = This concern is highlighted in the Cloud Security Alliance’s (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) and the Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) materials, which emphasize the importance of continuous monitoring and the customer’s ability to audit and ensure the security of their cloud services1.

 The primary component to determine the success or failure of an organization’s cloud compliance program is mapping who possesses the information and data that should drive the compliance goals. This is because the cloud compliance program should be aligned with the organization’s business objectives and risk appetite, and the information and data that support these objectives and risks are often distributed across different cloud service providers, business units, and stakeholders. Therefore, it is essential to identify who owns, controls, and accesses the information and data, and how they are protected, processed, and shared in the cloud environment. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain COM-02: Data Governance, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to manage data throughout its lifecycle in accordance with regulatory requirements, contractual obligations, and industry standards."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 3: Cloud Compliance Program, page 53