CCAK Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge Questions and Answers

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.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the regulation that is suitable if health information needs to be protected in the European Union. The GDPR provides the legal framework for the protection of personal data, including health data, and sets out directly applicable rules for the processing of the personal data of individuals1. The GDPR defines health data as personal data related to the physical or mental health of a natural person, including the provision of health care services, which reveal information about his or her health status2. The GDPR applies to any organization that processes health data of individuals who are in the EU, regardless of where the organization is established3.

The other options are not correct. Option B, DPIA, is incorrect because DPIA stands for Data Protection Impact Assessment, which is a process that helps organizations to identify and minimize the data protection risks of a project or activity that involves processing personal data. A DPIA is not a regulation, but a tool or a requirement under the GDPR4. Option C, DPA, is incorrect because DPA stands for Data Protection Authority, which is an independent public authority that supervises, through investigative and corrective powers, the application of the data protection law. A DPA is not a regulation, but an institution or a body under the GDPR5. Option D, HIPAA, is incorrect because HIPAA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which is a US federal law that provides data privacy and security provisions for safeguarding medical information. HIPAA does not apply to the EU, but to the US6. References :=

European Health Data Space1

Article 4 - Definitions | General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2

Article 3 - Territorial scope | General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)3

Data protection impact assessment | European Commission4

Data protection authorities | European Commission5

What is HIPAA? - Definition from WhatIs.com6

Mapping the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) to other international standards and regulations allows cloud service providers (CSPs) and customers to align their security and compliance measures with a broad range of industry-accepted frameworks. This alignment helps in simplifying compliance processes by ensuring that fulfilling the controls in the CCM also satisfies the requirements of the mapped standards and regulations. It reduces the need for multiple assessments and streamlines the compliance and security efforts, making it more efficient for both CSPs and customers to demonstrate adherence to various regulatory requirements.

References = The benefits of CCM mapping are discussed in resources provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), which detail how the CCM’s controls are aligned with other security standards, regulations, and control frameworks, thus aiding organizations in their compliance and security strategies12.

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

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

The greatest governance challenge in the scenario where production is hosted in a public cloud and backups are held on-premises is aligning the shared responsibilities between the provider and the customer. This is because the division of security and compliance duties must be clearly understood and managed to ensure that all aspects of the cloud services are adequately protected and meet regulatory requirements. The customer is responsible for the security ‘in’ the cloud (i.e., the data and applications), while the provider is responsible for the security ‘of’ the cloud (i.e., the infrastructure). Misalignment in this shared responsibility model can lead to gaps in security and compliance, making it a significant governance challenge.

References = This answer is verified by the information available in the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), which discuss the shared responsibility model and its implications for governance in cloud environments12.

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

SAST vs. DAST: What’s the Difference?

SAST vs DAST: What’s the Difference?

SAST vs. DAST: Enhancing application security

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

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 83-84.

ISACA, Cloud Computing Audit Program, 2019, p. 6-7.

The CSA STAR registry is a publicly accessible registry that documents the security and privacy controls provided by popular cloud computing offerings1 The registry is designed for users of cloud services to assess their cloud providers’ security and compliance posture, including the regulations, standards, and frameworks they adhere to1 The registry also promotes industry transparency and reduces complexity and costs for both providers and customers2

The provider can direct all customer inquiries to the information in the CSA STAR registry, as this would be the best recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. By publishing to the registry, the provider can show current and potential customers their security and compliance posture, without having to fill out multiple customer questionnaires or requests for proposal (RFPs)2 The provider can also leverage the different levels of assurance available in the registry, such as self-assessment, third-party audit, or certification, to demonstrate their security maturity and trustworthiness1 The provider can also benefit from the CSA Trusted Cloud Providers program, which recognizes providers that have fulfilled additional training and volunteer requirements with CSA, demonstrating their commitment to cloud security competency and industry best practices3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because the provider can schedule a call with each customer is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Scheduling a call with each customer would be time-consuming, inefficient, and impractical, especially if the provider receives multiple inquiries and RFPs every month. Scheduling a call would also not guarantee that the customer would be satisfied with the provider’s security and compliance posture, as they may still request additional information or evidence. Scheduling a call would also not help the provider differentiate themselves from other providers in the market, as they may not be able to showcase their security maturity and trustworthiness effectively.

Option B is not correct because the provider can share all security reports with customers to streamline the process is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Sharing all security reports with customers may not be feasible, as some reports may contain sensitive or confidential information that should not be disclosed to external parties. Sharing all security reports may also not be desirable, as some reports may be outdated, incomplete, or inconsistent, which could undermine the provider’s credibility and reputation. Sharing all security reports may also not be effective, as some customers may not have the expertise or resources to review and understand them properly.

Option C is not correct because the provider can answer each customer individually is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Answering each customer individually would be tedious, repetitive, and costly, as the provider would have to provide similar or identical information to different customers over and over again. Answering each customer individually would also not ensure that the provider’s security and compliance posture is consistent and accurate, as they may make mistakes or omissions in their responses. Answering each customer individually would also not help the provider stand out from other providers in the market, as they may not be able to highlight their security achievements and certifications.

References: 1: STAR | CSA 2: Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing 3: STAR Registry | CSA

Trust in a cloud service provider is fundamentally based on the assurance that the provider can deliver secure and reliable services. The level of proven technical skills is a critical factor because it demonstrates the provider’s capability to implement and maintain robust security measures, manage complex cloud infrastructures, and respond effectively to technical challenges. Technical expertise is essential for establishing trust, as it directly impacts the security and performance of the cloud services offered.

References = The importance of technical skills in establishing trust is supported by the resources provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA). These resources emphasize the need for cloud service providers to have a strong technical foundation to ensure the fulfillment of internal requirements, proper controls, and compliance with regulations, which are crucial for maintaining customer trust and mitigating risks1234.

The optimal and most efficient mechanism to assess the controls that the provider is responsible for is to review third-party audit reports. Third-party audit reports are independent and objective assessments of the provider’s security, compliance, and performance, conducted by qualified and reputable auditors. Third-party audit reports can provide assurance and evidence that the provider meets the industry standards and best practices, as well as the contractual and legal obligations with the SaaS company. Third-party audit reports can also cover a wide range of controls, such as data security, encryption, identity and access management, incident response, disaster recovery, and service level agreements. Some examples of third-party audit reports are ISO 27001 certification, SOC 1/2/3 reports, CSA STAR certification, and FedRAMP authorization123.

Reviewing the provider’s published questionnaires (A) may not be optimal or efficient, as the published questionnaires may not be comprehensive or up-to-date, and may not reflect the actual state of the provider’s controls. The published questionnaires may also be biased or inaccurate, as they are produced by the provider themselves.

Directly auditing the provider © may not be feasible or necessary, as the independent contractor may not have access to the provider’s environment or data, and may not have the authority or expertise to conduct such an audit. The independent contractor should rely on the third-party audit reports and certifications to assess the provider’s compliance with relevant standards and regulations.

Sending a supplier questionnaire to the provider (D) may not be optimal or efficient, as the supplier questionnaire may not cover all the aspects of the provider’s controls, and may not provide sufficient evidence or assurance of the provider’s security maturity. The supplier questionnaire may also take a long time to complete and verify, and may not be consistent with the industry standards and best practices. References :=

How to Evaluate Cloud Service Provider Security (Checklist)

Cloud service review process - Cloud Adoption Framework

How to choose a cloud service provider | Microsoft Azure

The correct answer is A. To providing a standardized approach to security and risk assessment. This is the main purpose of FedRAMP, which is a government-wide program that promotes the adoption of secure cloud services across the federal government. FedRAMP provides a standardized methodology for assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the security of cloud products and services, and enables agencies to leverage the security assessments of cloud service providers (CSPs) that have been approved by FedRAMP. FedRAMP also establishes a baseline set of security controls for cloud computing, based on NIST SP 800-53, and provides guidance and templates for implementing and documenting the controls1.

The other options are incorrect because:

B. To provide agencies of the federal government a dedicated tool to certify Authority to Operate (ATO): FedRAMP does not provide a tool to certify ATO, but rather a process to obtain a provisional ATO (P-ATO) from the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or an agency ATO from a federal agency. ATO is the official management decision given by a senior official to authorize operation of an information system and to explicitly accept the risk to agency operations, agency assets, or individuals based on the implementation of an agreed-upon set of security controls2.

C. To enable 3PAOs to perform independent security assessments of cloud service providers: FedRAMP does not enable 3PAOs to perform independent security assessments of CSPs, but rather requires CSPs to use 3PAOs for conducting independent security assessments as part of the FedRAMP process. 3PAOs are independent entities that have been accredited by FedRAMP to perform initial and periodic security assessments of CSPs’ systems and provide evidence of compliance with FedRAMP requirements3.

D. To publish a comprehensive and official framework for the secure implementation of controls for cloud security: FedRAMP does not publish a comprehensive and official framework for the secure implementation of controls for cloud security, but rather adopts and adapts the existing framework of NIST SP 800-53, which provides a catalog of security and privacy controls for federal information systems and organizations. FedRAMP tailors the NIST SP 800-53 controls to provide a subset of controls that are specific to cloud computing, and categorizes them into low, moderate, and high impact levels based on FIPS 1994.

References:

Learn What FedRAMP is All About | FedRAMP | FedRAMP.gov

Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems - NIST

Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAO) | FedRAMP.gov

Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations - NIST

 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

Continuous integration (CI) is the most critical concept for managing the building and testing of code in DevOps. CI is the practice of merging all developers’ working copies of code to a shared mainline several times a day. This enables early detection and resolution of bugs, conflicts, and errors, as well as faster and more frequent feedback loops. CI also facilitates the automation of building, testing, and deploying code, which improves the quality, reliability, and security of the software delivery process. CI is a prerequisite for continuous delivery (CD) and continuous deployment (CD), which are the next stages of DevOps maturity that aim to deliver software to customers faster and more frequently. References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 114-115

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, DCS-01: Datacenter Security - Build and Test

What is Continuous Integration?

Continuous Integration vs Continuous Delivery vs Continuous Deployment

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.

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

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

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

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

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 10-11.

Certification authority - Wikipedia

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

 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 …

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]

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

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.

 For a European manufacturing corporation migrating to the cloud, the best control framework would be the Cloud Security Alliance’s (CSA) General Data Protection Regulation Code of Conduct (GDPR CoC). This framework is specifically designed to help cloud service providers and users comply with EU data protection requirements. As GDPR is a critical regulation in Europe that imposes strict data protection rules, adhering to a framework that aligns with these regulations is essential for any organization operating within the EU.

References = The CSA’s GDPR CoC is recognized as a robust framework for ensuring compliance with GDPR, which is a key consideration for European organizations migrating to the cloud. This is supported by the resources provided by the Cloud Security Alliance and ISACA in their Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) materials1.

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

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

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

 The BSI Criteria Catalogue C5 is a document that has been provided by the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) in Germany to support customers in selecting, controlling, and monitoring their cloud service providers (CSPs). The C5 stands for Cloud Computing Compliance Criteria Catalogue and specifies minimum requirements for secure cloud computing. The C5 is primarily intended for professional CSPs, their auditors, and customers of the CSPs. The C5 covers 17 domains and 114 control objectives that address all key aspects of cloud security, such as data protection, identity and access management, encryption and key management, incident response, audit assurance, and compliance. The C5 also maps to other industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks, such as ISO 27001/27002/27017/27018, NIST SP 800-53, CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), COBIT, GDPR, etc. The C5 helps customers to evaluate and compare the security and compliance posture of different CSPs, and to verify that the CSPs meet their contractual obligations and legal requirements12.

References:

BSI - C5 criteria catalogue - Federal Office for Information Security

Germany C5 - Azure Compliance | Microsoft Learn

To assist an organization with planning a cloud migration strategy to execution, an auditor should recommend the use of enterprise architecture (EA). EA is a holistic approach to aligning the business and IT objectives, processes, and resources of an organization. EA helps to define the current and future state of the organization, identify the gaps and opportunities, and design the roadmap and governance for the cloud migration. EA also helps to ensure that the cloud migration is consistent with the organization’s vision, mission, values, and strategy, and that it meets the requirements of the stakeholders, customers, and regulators. EA is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain GRC-01: Enterprise Risk Management, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to identify, assess, manage, and monitor risks related to cloud services."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 2: Cloud Governance, page 25

The first step to switch from the ISO/IEC 27002 control framework to the NIST 800-53 control framework is to map ISO/IEC 27002 and NIST 800-53 and detect gaps and commonalities. This step can help the organization to understand the similarities and differences between the two frameworks, and to identify which controls are already implemented, which controls need to be added or modified, and which controls are no longer applicable. Mapping can also help the organization to leverage the existing work done under ISO/IEC 27002 and avoid starting from scratch or discarding valuable information. Mapping can also help the organization to align with both frameworks, as they are not mutually exclusive or incompatible. In fact, NIST SP 800-53, Revision 5 provides a mapping table between NIST 800-53 and ISO/IEC 27001 in Appendix H-21. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that is based on ISO/IEC 27002, which is a code of practice for information security controls2.

References:

NIST SP 800-53, Revision 5 Control Mappings to ISO/IEC 27001

ISO - ISO/IEC 27002:2013 - Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls

To qualify for CSA STAR attestation, the SOC 2 report must cover both the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) and ISO/IEC 27001:2013 controls. The CSA STAR Attestation integrates SOC 2 reporting with additional cloud security criteria from the CSA CCM. This combination provides a comprehensive framework for assessing the security and privacy controls of cloud services, ensuring that they meet the rigorous standards required for STAR attestation. References = The information is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance’s resources, which outline the STAR program’s emphasis on transparency, rigorous auditing, and harmonization of standards as per the CCM. Additionally, the CSA STAR Certification process leverages the requirements of the ISO/IEC 27001:2013 management system standard together with the CSA Cloud Controls Matrix

When applying the Top Threats Analysis methodology following an incident, the scope of the technical impact identification step is to determine the impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information system. The Top Threats Analysis methodology is a framework developed by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) to help organizations identify, analyze, and mitigate the most critical threats to cloud computing. The methodology consists of six steps: threat identification, threat analysis, technical impact identification, business impact analysis, risk assessment, and risk treatment12.

The technical impact identification step is the third step of the methodology, and it aims to assess how the incident affected the security properties of the information system, namely confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Confidentiality refers to the protection of data from unauthorized access or disclosure. Integrity refers to the protection of data from unauthorized modification or deletion. Availability refers to the protection of data and services from disruption or denial. The technical impact identification step can help organizations to understand the severity and extent of the incident and its consequences on the information system12.

The other options are not within the scope of the technical impact identification step. Option A, determine the impact on the controls that were selected by the organization to respond to identified risks, is not within the scope because it is part of the risk treatment step, which is the sixth and final step of the methodology. Option C, determine the impact on the physical and environmental security of the organization, excluding informational assets, is not within the scope because it is not related to the information system or its security properties. Option D, determine the impact on the financial, operational, compliance, and reputation of the organization, is not within the scope because it is part of the business impact analysis step, which is the fourth step of the methodology. References :=

Top Threats Analysis Methodology - CSA1

Top Threats Analysis Methodology - Cloud Security Alliance

The three main phases of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) mapping methodology are preparation, execution, and peer review and publication. The CCM mapping methodology is a process to map the CCM controls to other standards, regulations, or frameworks that are relevant for cloud security. The mapping helps to identify the commonalities and differences between the CCM and the other standards, regulations, or frameworks, and to provide guidance for cloud service providers and customers on how to achieve compliance with multiple requirements using the CCM. The mapping methodology consists of the following phases1:

Preparation: This phase involves defining the scope, objectives, and deliverables of the mapping project, as well as identifying the stakeholders, resources, and tools needed. This phase also includes conducting a preliminary analysis of the CCM and the other standard, regulation, or framework to be mapped, and establishing the mapping criteria and rules.

Execution: This phase involves performing the actual mapping of the CCM controls to the other standard, regulation, or framework using a spreadsheet template. This phase also includes documenting the mapping results, providing explanations and justifications for each mapping decision, and resolving any issues or conflicts that may arise during the mapping process.

Peer Review and Publication: This phase involves validating and verifying the quality and accuracy of the mapping results by conducting a peer review with subject matter experts from both the CCM working group and the other standard, regulation, or framework organization. This phase also includes finalizing and publishing the mapping document as a CSA artifact, and communicating and promoting the mapping to the relevant audiences.

References := Methodology for the Mapping of the Cloud Controls Matrix1

 The three layers of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) primarily help cloud service providers and cloud clients improve the level of transparency and assurance. The OCF is designed to provide a trusted and independent evaluation of cloud providers through a flexible, incremental, and multi-layered certification process. This framework enhances transparency by making it easier for consumers to understand and compare providers’ security and compliance capabilities. Additionally, it offers assurance by integrating with third-party assessment and attestation statements, thereby increasing the security baseline for all participants.

References = The benefits of the OCF in improving transparency and assurance are detailed in the Cloud Security Alliance’s documentation on the Open Certification Framework1.

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

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

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 971

ISACA, Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam, 2021, p. 36

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

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

The auditor’s next course of action should be to review the contract and DR capability of the cloud service provider. This will help the auditor to verify if the provider has a DR plan that meets the organization’s requirements and expectations, and if the provider has evidence of testing and validating the plan annually. The auditor should also check if the contract specifies the roles and responsibilities of both parties, the RTO and RPO values, the SLA terms, and the penalties for non-compliance.

Reviewing the security white paper of the provider (option A) might give some information about the provider’s security practices and controls, but it might not be sufficient or relevant to assess the DR plan. Reviewing the provider’s audit reports (option B) might also provide some assurance about the provider’s compliance with standards and regulations, but it might not address the specific DR needs of the organization. Planning an audit of the provider (option D) might be a possible course of action, but it would require more time and resources, and it might not be feasible or necessary if the contract and DR capability are already satisfactory. References:

Disaster recovery planning guide

Audit a Disaster Recovery Plan

How to Maintain and Test a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan

External attestation and certification audit reports are considered the best method to demonstrate assurance in cloud services to multiple customers because they provide an independent verification of the cloud service provider’s controls and practices. These reports are conducted by third-party auditors and offer a level of transparency and trust that cannot be achieved through self-assessments or internal documents. They help ensure that the cloud provider meets industry standards and regulatory requirements, which is crucial for customers to assess the risk and compliance posture of their cloud service providers.

References = The importance of external attestation and certification audit reports is supported by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA, which state that the CCAK credential prepares IT and security professionals to ensure that the right controls are in place and to mitigate the risks and costs of audit management and penalties for non-compliance1.

 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.

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.

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

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

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

References:

Detective controls - SaaS Lens - docs.aws.amazon.com3, section on Privileged access monitoring

Detective controls | Cloud Architecture Center | Google Cloud2, section on Detective controls

Internal control: how do preventive and detective controls work?4, section on SaaS Solutions to Support Internal Control

Detective Control: Definition, Examples, Vs. Preventive Control1, section on What Is a Detective Control?

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

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

DevSecOps is an approach that integrates security practices into every phase of the software development lifecycle. It emphasizes the incorporation of security from the beginning, rather than as an afterthought, and utilizes automation to ensure security measures are consistently applied throughout the development process. This method allows for early detection and resolution of security issues, making it an essential practice for organizations with mature security programs and cloud adoption.

References = The definition and best practices of DevSecOps are well-documented in resources provided by leading industry authorities such as Microsoft1 and IBM2, which describe DevSecOps as a framework that automates the integration of security into the software development lifecycle.

The correct answer is B. Network security is the type of control that best matches the control description given in the question. Network security involves designing and configuring network environments and virtual instances to restrict and monitor traffic between trusted and untrusted connections, such as firewalls, routers, switches, VPNs, and network segmentation. Network security also requires periodic reviews and documentation of the network configurations and the justification for the allowed services, protocols, ports, and compensating controls.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option A, virtual instance and OS hardening, refers to the process of applying security configurations and patches to virtual instances and operating systems to reduce their attack surface and vulnerabilities. Option C, network vulnerability management, refers to the process of identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and remediating network vulnerabilities using tools such as scanners, analyzers, and testers. Option D, change detection, refers to the process of monitoring and detecting changes in the system or network environment that could affect the security posture or performance of the system or network.

References :=

IVS-01: Network Security - CSF Tools - Identity Digital1

Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, Chapter 6: Cloud Security Controls

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA2

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.

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is a standard that provides guidelines for information security controls applicable to the provision and use of cloud services by providing additional implementation guidance for relevant controls specified in ISO/IEC 27002, as well as additional controls with implementation guidance that specifically relate to cloud services1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is designed to be used by organizations for cloud services that intend to select controls within the process of implementing an information security management system based on ISO/IEC 27001, which is the international standard for information security management systems1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 can help organizations to establish, implement, maintain and continually improve their information security in the cloud environment, as well as to demonstrate compliance with contractual and legal obligations1.

ISO/IEC 27002 is a code of practice for information security controls that provides best practice recommendations on information security management for use by those who are responsible for initiating, implementing or maintaining information security management systems2. However, ISO/IEC 27002 does not provide specific guidance for cloud services, which is why ISO/IEC 27017:2015 was developed as an extension to ISO/IEC 27002 for cloud services1.

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is a set of security controls that provides organizations with a detailed understanding of security concepts and principles that are aligned to the cloud model. The CCM is not a standard, but rather a framework that can be used to assess the overall security risk of a cloud provider. The CCM can also be mapped to other standards, such as ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27017:2015, to facilitate compliance and assurance activities.

NIST SP 800-146 is a publication from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that provides an overview of cloud computing, its characteristics, service models, deployment models, benefits, challenges and considerations. NIST SP 800-146 is not a standard, but rather a reference document that can help organizations to understand the basics of cloud computing and its implications for information security. NIST SP 800-146 does not provide specific guidance or controls for cloud services, but rather refers to other standards and frameworks, such as ISO/IEC 27001 and CSA CCM, for more detailed information on cloud security. References :=

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - Information technology — Security techniques …

ISO/IEC 27017:2015(en), Information technology ? Security techniques …

ISO 27017 Certification - Cloud Security Services | NQA

An introduction to ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - 6clicks

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - Information technology — Security techniques …

[Cloud Controls Matrix | Cloud Security Alliance]

[NIST Cloud Computing Synopsis and Recommendations]

Implementing service level agreements (SLAs) around changes to baseline configurations is the most important way to manage risk from cloud vendors who might accidentally introduce unnecessary risk to an organization by adding new features to their solutions. A service level agreement (SLA) is a contract or a part of a contract that defines the expected level of service, performance, and quality that a cloud vendor will provide to an organization. An SLA can also specify the roles and responsibilities, the communication channels, the escalation procedures, and the penalties or remedies for non-compliance12.

Implementing SLAs around changes to baseline configurations can help an organization to manage the risk from cloud vendors who might add new features to their solutions without proper testing, validation, or notification. Baseline configurations are the standard or reference settings for a system or a network that are used to measure and maintain its security and performance. Changes to baseline configurations can introduce new vulnerabilities, errors, or incompatibilities that can affect the functionality, availability, or security of the system or network34. Therefore, an SLA can help an organization to ensure that the cloud vendor follows a change management process that includes steps such as risk assessment, impact analysis, approval, documentation, notification, testing, and rollback. An SLA can also help an organization to monitor and verify the changes made by the cloud vendor and to report and resolve any issues or incidents that may arise from them.

The other options are not the most effective ways to manage the risk from cloud vendors who might add new features to their solutions. Option A, deploying new features using cloud orchestration tools, is not a good way to manage the risk because cloud orchestration tools are used to automate and coordinate the deployment and management of complex cloud services and resources. Cloud orchestration tools do not address the issue of whether the new features added by the cloud vendor are necessary, secure, or compatible with the organization’s system or network. Option B, performing prior due diligence of the vendor, is not a good way to manage the risk because prior due diligence is a process that involves evaluating and verifying the background, reputation, capabilities, and compliance of a potential cloud vendor before entering into a contract with them. Prior due diligence does not address the issue of how the cloud vendor will handle changes to their solutions after the contract is signed. Option C, establishing responsibility in the vendor contract, is not a good way to manage the risk because establishing responsibility in the vendor contract is a process that involves defining and assigning the roles and obligations of both parties in relation to the cloud service delivery and performance. Establishing responsibility in the vendor contract does not address the issue of how the cloud vendor will communicate and coordinate with the organization about changes to their solutions. References :=

What is an SLA? Best practices for service-level agreements | CIO1

Service Level Agreements - Cloud Security Alliance2

What is Baseline Configuration? - Definition from Techopedia3

Baseline Configuration - Cloud Security Alliance4

Change Management - Cloud Security Alliance

Incident Response - Cloud Security Alliance

What is Cloud Orchestration? - Definition from Techopedia

Due Diligence - Cloud Security Alliance

Contractual Security Requirements - Cloud Security Alliance

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.

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

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

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

 The best way for the organization to take advantage of the supplier relationship feature of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is to leverage this feature to enable a smarter selection of the next cloud provider. The supplier relationship feature is a column in the CCM spreadsheet that indicates whether a control is influenced by contractual agreements between the cloud service provider and the cloud customer. This feature can help the organization to identify and compare the security and compliance capabilities of different cloud providers, as well as to negotiate and customize the terms of service (TOS) and service level agreements (SLA) according to their needs and requirements123.

The other options are not the best ways to use the supplier relationship feature. Option A, filter out only those controls directly influenced by contractual agreements, is not a good way to use the feature because it would exclude other important controls that are not influenced by contractual agreements, but still relevant for cloud security and governance. Option B, leverage this feature to enable the adoption of the Shared Responsibility Model, is not a good way to use the feature because the Shared Responsibility Model is defined by another column in the CCM spreadsheet, which indicates whether a control is applicable to the cloud service provider or the cloud customer. Option C, filter out only those controls having a direct impact on current TOS and SLA, is not a good way to use the feature because it would exclude other controls that may have an indirect or potential impact on the TOS and SLA, or that may be subject to change or negotiation in the future. References :=

What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1

Understanding the Cloud Control Matrix | CloudBolt Software3

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA2

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