- Home
- PECB Certification
- ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor-CN Exam
- PECB.ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor-CN.v2026-09-16.q319 Dumps
Question 276
您正在一家提供醫療保健服務的住宅療養院進行 ISMS 初始認證審核。審計計劃的下一步是召開末次會議。在最終審核小組會議上，身為審核組組長，您同意報告 2 項輕微不符合項和 1 項改進機會，如下：
選擇您將在最後一次會議上向受審核方提供建議的審核專案經理的建議選項。
Correct Answer: C
*Minor Nonconformities: The identified nonconformities are minor, meaning they don't pose a significant risk to the information security management system (ISMS). They are likely to be easily rectified with focused corrective actions.
*Opportunity for Improvement: This is not a nonconformity but a suggestion for enhancing the ISMS. It doesn't require immediate corrective action but should be addressed in the organization's continual improvement efforts.
*Initial Certification: As this is an initial certification audit, the organization is expected to demonstrate its commitment to addressing any gaps identified. A partial audit allows for a focused follow-up on the specific areas of nonconformity, ensuring they have been adequately addressed.
Why other options are not suitable:
*A. Recommend certification after your approval of the proposed corrective action plan: While certification is the goal, it's premature to recommend it before verifying the effectiveness of the corrective actions.
*B. Recommend that a full scope re-audit is required within 6 months: This is too extensive for minor nonconformities. A full re-audit is usually reserved for major nonconformities or systemic issues.
*D. Recommend that the findings can be closed out at a surveillance audit in 1 year: This is too long a timeframe for addressing the nonconformities. Prompt corrective action is necessary to demonstrate commitment to the ISMS.
In summary, recommending a partial audit within 3 months strikes the right balance between allowing the organization time to implement corrective actions and ensuring timely verification of their effectiveness. This approach aligns with the principles of ISO 27001 and supports the organization's journey towards certification.
*Opportunity for Improvement: This is not a nonconformity but a suggestion for enhancing the ISMS. It doesn't require immediate corrective action but should be addressed in the organization's continual improvement efforts.
*Initial Certification: As this is an initial certification audit, the organization is expected to demonstrate its commitment to addressing any gaps identified. A partial audit allows for a focused follow-up on the specific areas of nonconformity, ensuring they have been adequately addressed.
Why other options are not suitable:
*A. Recommend certification after your approval of the proposed corrective action plan: While certification is the goal, it's premature to recommend it before verifying the effectiveness of the corrective actions.
*B. Recommend that a full scope re-audit is required within 6 months: This is too extensive for minor nonconformities. A full re-audit is usually reserved for major nonconformities or systemic issues.
*D. Recommend that the findings can be closed out at a surveillance audit in 1 year: This is too long a timeframe for addressing the nonconformities. Prompt corrective action is necessary to demonstrate commitment to the ISMS.
In summary, recommending a partial audit within 3 months strikes the right balance between allowing the organization time to implement corrective actions and ensuring timely verification of their effectiveness. This approach aligns with the principles of ISO 27001 and supports the organization's journey towards certification.
Question 277
您是經驗豐富的 ISMS 審核團隊領導，指導審核員進行培訓。您決定透過詢問她一系列問題來測試她對後續審核的了解。這是您的問題和她的答案。
她正確回答了您的哪四個問題？
Correct Answer: B,D,E,H
Based on the understanding of follow-up audits, especially in the context of Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) and the guidelines provided by ISO 19011:2018, here are the four questions from your list that the auditor in training has answered correctly:
B: Q: Should follow-up audits seek to ensure nonconformities have been effectively addressed? A: YES This is correct. The primary purpose of follow-up audits is to verify that nonconformities identified in previous audits have been effectively addressed and the corrective actions taken are suitable and effective.
D: Q: Is the purpose of a follow-up audit to verify the completion of corrections, corrective actions, and opportunities for improvement? A: YES Yes, the follow-up audit aims to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrections and corrective actions. It may also consider the implementation of opportunities for improvement identified during the initial audit.
E: Q: Are follow-up audits required for all audits? A: NO This is correct. Follow-up audits are not automatically required for all audits. They are typically conducted when nonconformities or other significant issues were identified in an earlier audit and there's a need to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions.
H: Q: Could an outcome from a follow-up audit be another follow-up audit if required? A: YES Yes, this is a possible outcome. If the follow-up audit finds that the corrective actions have not been fully effective, or if new issues are identified, it may be necessary to conduct another follow-up audit.
The other responses provided by the auditor in training require some clarification or correction. For instance, while a follow-up audit primarily focuses on previously identified nonconformities and corrective actions, it can still identify new nonconformities if observed (A). Opportunities for improvement are generally considered in the scope of regular audits more so than in follow-up audits, which are more narrowly focused on corrective actions (C). Also, the outcomes of follow-up audits should typically be reported to both the audit team leader and the audit client (F and G), ensuring transparency and accountability.
The four questions that the auditor in training has answered correctly are B, D, E, and H. These questions and answers are consistent with the definition and purpose of a follow-up audit as specified in ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.712. A follow-up audit is conducted to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrective actions taken as a result of a previous audit (B, D). Follow-up audits are not mandatory for all audits, but they may be required by the audit program, the audit client, or other interested parties (E). The outcome of a follow-up audit may be another follow-up audit if the corrective actions are not satisfactory or not completed within the agreed time frame (H). The other questions and answers are either incorrect or irrelevant. A follow-up audit should not seek to identify new nonconformities, as this is not its objective (A). Follow-up audits should consider agreed opportunities for improvement as well as corrective actions, as they are both outputs of a previous audit . The outcome of a follow-up audit should be reported to the audit client, as well as to other relevant parties, such as the audit team leader who carried out the previous audit (F, G). References: 1: ISO
19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 6.7 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 6: Closing an ISO/IEC 27001 audit
B: Q: Should follow-up audits seek to ensure nonconformities have been effectively addressed? A: YES This is correct. The primary purpose of follow-up audits is to verify that nonconformities identified in previous audits have been effectively addressed and the corrective actions taken are suitable and effective.
D: Q: Is the purpose of a follow-up audit to verify the completion of corrections, corrective actions, and opportunities for improvement? A: YES Yes, the follow-up audit aims to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrections and corrective actions. It may also consider the implementation of opportunities for improvement identified during the initial audit.
E: Q: Are follow-up audits required for all audits? A: NO This is correct. Follow-up audits are not automatically required for all audits. They are typically conducted when nonconformities or other significant issues were identified in an earlier audit and there's a need to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions.
H: Q: Could an outcome from a follow-up audit be another follow-up audit if required? A: YES Yes, this is a possible outcome. If the follow-up audit finds that the corrective actions have not been fully effective, or if new issues are identified, it may be necessary to conduct another follow-up audit.
The other responses provided by the auditor in training require some clarification or correction. For instance, while a follow-up audit primarily focuses on previously identified nonconformities and corrective actions, it can still identify new nonconformities if observed (A). Opportunities for improvement are generally considered in the scope of regular audits more so than in follow-up audits, which are more narrowly focused on corrective actions (C). Also, the outcomes of follow-up audits should typically be reported to both the audit team leader and the audit client (F and G), ensuring transparency and accountability.
The four questions that the auditor in training has answered correctly are B, D, E, and H. These questions and answers are consistent with the definition and purpose of a follow-up audit as specified in ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.712. A follow-up audit is conducted to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrective actions taken as a result of a previous audit (B, D). Follow-up audits are not mandatory for all audits, but they may be required by the audit program, the audit client, or other interested parties (E). The outcome of a follow-up audit may be another follow-up audit if the corrective actions are not satisfactory or not completed within the agreed time frame (H). The other questions and answers are either incorrect or irrelevant. A follow-up audit should not seek to identify new nonconformities, as this is not its objective (A). Follow-up audits should consider agreed opportunities for improvement as well as corrective actions, as they are both outputs of a previous audit . The outcome of a follow-up audit should be reported to the audit client, as well as to other relevant parties, such as the audit team leader who carried out the previous audit (F, G). References: 1: ISO
19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 6.7 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 6: Closing an ISO/IEC 27001 audit
Question 278
審計小組負責人正計劃在今年稍早完成第三方監督審計後進行後續審計。他們決定在考慮採取糾正措施之前先驗證需要糾正的不合格項。
根據以下的描述，下列哪四項是監督中發現的不合格項的修正？
Correct Answer: A,B,C,E
According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, a correction is an action to eliminate a detected nonconformity, such as rework, repair, or replacement1. The examples of A, B, C, and E are corrections because they fix the errors or defects that caused the nonconformities, such as a missing signature, a missing guide, a wrong date, or a wrong colour code. The other examples (D, F, G, and H) are not corrections, but corrective actions, because they address the root causes of the nonconformities, such as inadequate training, poor planning, ineffective documentation, or unclear responsibility2. Reference: 1: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 35, section 4.5.12: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 36, section 4.5.2.
Question 279
當審核團隊的另一位成員向您尋求澄清時，您正在進行第三方監督審核。他們被要求評估組織對控制 5.7 - 威脅情報的應用。他們知道這是 2022 年版 ISO/IEC 中引入的新控制措施之一
27001，他們希望確保正確審核控制。
他們準備了一份清單來協助他們進行審核，並希望您確認他們計劃的活動符合控制要求。
下列哪三個選項代表有效的審計追蹤？
Correct Answer: A,D,F
According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), control 5.7 requires an organization to establish and maintain a threat intelligence process to identify and evaluate information security threats that are relevant to its ISMS scope and objectives1. The organization should use internal and external sources of information, such as vulnerability databases, threat feeds, industry reports, etc., to produce threat intelligence that can be used to support risk assessment and treatment, as well as other information security activities1. Therefore, when auditing the organization's application of control 5.7, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.
Three options that represent valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7 are:
I will review the organisation's threat intelligence process and will ensure that this is fully documented: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process that is consistent with its ISMS scope and objectives. It can also verify that the process is documented according to clause 7.5 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.
I will check that threat intelligence is actively used to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the organisation's information assets: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used threat intelligence to support its risk assessment and treatment, as well as other information security activities, such as incident response, awareness, or monitoring. It can also verify that the organization has achieved its information security objectives according to clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.
I will determine whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used various sources of information, such as vulnerability databases, threat feeds, industry reports, etc., to produce threat intelligence that is relevant and reliable. It can also verify that the organization has complied with the requirement of control 5.7 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.
The other options are not valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7, as they are not related to the control or its requirements. For example:
I will speak to top management to make sure all staff are aware of the importance of reporting threats: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding information security awareness or communication, but not specifically to control 5.7.
I will ensure that the task of producing threat intelligence is assigned to the organisation s internal audit team: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also contradict the requirement for auditor independence and objectivity, as recommended by ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.
I will ensure that the organisation's risk assessment process begins with effective threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also imply a prescriptive approach to risk assessment that is not consistent with ISO/IEC 27005:20183, which provides guidelines for information security risk management.
I will review how information relating to information security threats is collected and evaluated to produce threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also be too vague or broad to be an effective audit trail, as it does not specify what criteria or methods are used for collecting and evaluating information.
I will ensure that appropriate measures have been introduced to inform top management as to the effectiveness of current threat intelligence arrangements: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding management review or performance evaluation, but not specifically to control 5.7.
Three options that represent valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7 are:
I will review the organisation's threat intelligence process and will ensure that this is fully documented: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process that is consistent with its ISMS scope and objectives. It can also verify that the process is documented according to clause 7.5 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.
I will check that threat intelligence is actively used to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the organisation's information assets: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used threat intelligence to support its risk assessment and treatment, as well as other information security activities, such as incident response, awareness, or monitoring. It can also verify that the organization has achieved its information security objectives according to clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.
I will determine whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used various sources of information, such as vulnerability databases, threat feeds, industry reports, etc., to produce threat intelligence that is relevant and reliable. It can also verify that the organization has complied with the requirement of control 5.7 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.
The other options are not valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7, as they are not related to the control or its requirements. For example:
I will speak to top management to make sure all staff are aware of the importance of reporting threats: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding information security awareness or communication, but not specifically to control 5.7.
I will ensure that the task of producing threat intelligence is assigned to the organisation s internal audit team: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also contradict the requirement for auditor independence and objectivity, as recommended by ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.
I will ensure that the organisation's risk assessment process begins with effective threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also imply a prescriptive approach to risk assessment that is not consistent with ISO/IEC 27005:20183, which provides guidelines for information security risk management.
I will review how information relating to information security threats is collected and evaluated to produce threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also be too vague or broad to be an effective audit trail, as it does not specify what criteria or methods are used for collecting and evaluating information.
I will ensure that appropriate measures have been introduced to inform top management as to the effectiveness of current threat intelligence arrangements: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding management review or performance evaluation, but not specifically to control 5.7.
Question 280
審核員應具備一定的知識和技能；而審計組長也應該具備一些額外的知識和技能。從下面的清單中，選擇僅適用於審核團隊領導的兩項。
Correct Answer: A,D
According to the PECB Candidate Handbook1, audit team leaders should have the following additional knowledge and skills compared to auditors:
* Plan the audit, including preparing the audit plan, assigning work to the audit team members and coordinating their activities
* Make effective use of resources provided to the audit, such as personnel, time, budget and equipment
* Manage the audit process, including leading the opening and closing meetings, directing the audit team, resolving conflicts and ensuring the audit objectives are achieved
* Review and approve the audit report and audit findings
* Communicate with the client and other interested parties throughout the audit
* Plan the audit, including preparing the audit plan, assigning work to the audit team members and coordinating their activities
* Make effective use of resources provided to the audit, such as personnel, time, budget and equipment
* Manage the audit process, including leading the opening and closing meetings, directing the audit team, resolving conflicts and ensuring the audit objectives are achieved
* Review and approve the audit report and audit findings
* Communicate with the client and other interested parties throughout the audit
[×]
Download PDF File
Enter your email address to download PECB.ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor-CN.v2026-09-16.q319 Dumps