The four statements that are true are: *Major nonconformities may be subject to on-site follow up *The action taken to address major nonconformities is typically more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities *Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity *Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance According to ISO 19011:2018, a nonconformity is the non-fulfilment of a requirement1. Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance, based on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The grading of nonconformities may use different terms or levels, such as major, minor, critical, etc., depending on the nature and context of the audit3. However, some common definitions of major and minor nonconformities are: *A major nonconformity is a nonconformity that affects the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents a significant breakdown of the management system4. Major nonconformities may require immediate corrective action and on-site follow up by the auditor to verify their closure5. *A minor nonconformity is a nonconformity that does not affect the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents an isolated lapse of the management system4. Minor nonconformities may require corrective action within a specified time frame and off-site verification by the auditor to confirm their closure5. The action taken to address nonconformities depends on the severity and impact of the nonconformity, and the risk of recurrence or escalation. Typically, the action taken to address major nonconformities is more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities, as it may involve identifying and eliminating the root cause of the problem, implementing preventive measures, and monitoring the effectiveness of the solution. Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity if they are related to the same requirement, process, or area, and if they indicate a systemic failure or a significant risk to the management system. The auditor should use professional judgment and evidence-based approach to decide whether to group or report nonconformities individually. The other statements are false, based on the guidance of ISO 19011:2018. For example: *Option B is false, because nonconformities can be graded using different terms or levels, depending on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The terms 'major' and 'minor' are not mandatory or universal, but rather examples of possible grading levels3. *Option D is false, because very minor nonconformities should not be re-graded as opportunities for improvement, but rather reported as nonconformities, as they still represent a non-fulfilment of a requirement1. An opportunity for improvement is a suggestion for enhancing the performance or effectiveness of the management system, but it is not a nonconformity or a requirement. *Option F is false, because the grading of nonconformities does not have to be explained to the auditee at the opening meeting, but rather at the closing meeting, where the audit findings and conclusions are presented and discussed. The opening meeting is intended to provide an overview of the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methods, and to confirm the audit arrangements and logistics. *Option G is false, because the auditee is not always responsible for determining the criteria for grading nonconformities, but rather the audit programme or the audit client, in consultation with the auditee and other relevant parties2. The auditee is responsible for taking corrective action to address the nonconformities, and for providing evidence of their completion and effectiveness. References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 3.13; 2: ISO 19011:2018, 6.6.2; 3: ISO 19011:2018, 6.6.3; 4: ISO Audit Findings :Non-conformance - AUVA Certification1; 5: Annex III: Nonconformity grading - FSSC2; : ISO 27001 Certification - Major vs. Minor Nonconformities - Advisera3; : GUIDANCE FOR ADDRESSING AND CLEARING NONCONFORMITIES - SADCAS4; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.2; : ISO 19011:2018, 3.14; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.7; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.4; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.7.2; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]
Question 142
認證機構在決定授予認證時不需要審核報告中的下列哪一項結論？
Correct Answer: B
The conclusion in the audit report that is not required by the certification body when deciding to grant certification is that the organisation fully complies with all legal and other requirements applicable to the ISMS. This is because the certification body does not have the authority or the responsibility to verify the legal compliance of the organisation, as this is outside the scope of ISO/IEC 27001:2022. The certification body only evaluates the conformity of the organisation's ISMS with the requirements of the standard, which include the establishment of a process to identify and evaluate the legal and other requirements that are relevant to the ISMS. The organisation is responsible for ensuring its own legal compliance and for providing evidence of such compliance to the certification body if requested. References: = ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3; ISO/IEC 27006:2022, clause 9.2.2.4; PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 29.
Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Security controls can be classified by type (administrative, technical, physical) and function (preventive, detective, corrective). A . Detective and administrative - Correct Answer. Reviewing access rights is an administrative control because it involves procedural security measures (such as policy enforcement and auditing). It is also a detective control because it helps identify inappropriate or unauthorized access by auditing and verifying user permissions. B . Corrective and managerial - Incorrect because reviewing user access rights does not correct an issue but rather detects potential unauthorized access. It is also administrative, not managerial. C . Legal and technical - Incorrect because reviewing user access rights is an administrative policy-based action, not a legal or technical control.
The Statement of Applicability (SoA) is a core document within an ISMS that outlines the security controls an organization implements. When a new control, such as the SSH protocol, is implemented, it should be included in the SoA to reflect the current state of the ISMS. The SoA should be updated to justify the inclusion of the new control and to document how it is implemented within the organization12. Reference: = This guidance is based on the best practices for maintaining the SoA as per ISO/IEC 27001, which requires the SoA to be a living document that accurately reflects the security controls in use by the organization
A certification body cannot certify an organization if it has provided consultancy services to that organization. This situation presents a conflict of interest, as the certification body is required to maintain impartiality and objectivity. The ISO/IEC 17021-1 standard, which sets out requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, specifies that providing both services to the same client is incompatible. References: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Conformity assessment - Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems
