CCAK Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge Question and Answers

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.

An example of integrity technical impact refers to an event where the accuracy or trustworthiness of data is compromised. Option D, where a hacker uses a stolen administrator identity to alter the discount percentage in the product database, directly affects the integrity of the data. This action leads to unauthorized changes to data, which is a clear violation of data integrity. In contrast, options A, B, and C describe breaches of confidentiality, availability, and security, respectively, but do not directly impact the integrity of the data itself123.

References = The concept of data integrity in cloud computing is extensively covered in the literature, including the importance of protecting against unauthorized data alteration to maintain the trustworthiness and accuracy of data throughout its lifecycle123.

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

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

References:

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

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

 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 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

APIs are likely to be attacked continuously by bad actors because they are generally the most exposed part of an application or system. APIs serve as the interface between different components or services, and often expose sensitive data or functionality to the outside world. APIs can be accessed by anyone with an Internet connection, and can be easily discovered by scanning or crawling techniques. Therefore, APIs are a prime target for attackers who want to exploit vulnerabilities, steal data, or disrupt services.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 88-89.

OWASP, The Ten Most Critical API Security Risks - OWASP Foundation, 2019, p. 4-5

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

The other options are incorrect because:

A. CSA STAR Level Certificate: CSA STAR is a program for security assurance in the cloud that encompasses key principles of transparency, rigorous auditing, and harmonization of standards. CSA STAR Level Certificate is one of the certification options offered by CSA STAR, which is based on the ISO/IEC 27001 standard and the CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM). CSA STAR Level Certificate is not specific to the US federal government standards, and does not guarantee compliance with FedRAMP requirements3.

B. Multi-Tier Cloud Security (MTCS) Attestation: MTCS is a cloud security standard developed by the Singapore government to provide greater clarity and transparency on the level of security offered by different CSPs. MTCS defines three levels of security controls for CSPs: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3, with Level 3 being the most stringent. MTCS Attestation is a voluntary self-disclosure scheme for CSPs to declare their conformance to the MTCS standard. MTCS Attestation is not applicable to the US federal government standards, and does not ensure compliance with FedRAMP requirements4.

C. ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Certification: ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization. ISO/IEC 27001 Certification is an independent verification that an organization conforms to the ISO/IEC 27001 standard. ISO/IEC 27001 Certification is not exclusive to cloud computing or the US federal government standards, and does not cover all aspects of FedRAMP requirements5.

References:

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

How to Become FedRAMP Authorized | FedRAMP.gov

STAR | CSA

Multi-Tiered Cloud Security Standard (MTCS SS)

ISO - ISO/IEC 27001 — Information security management

The 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. The CCM is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that covers 17 domains and 197 control objectives that address all key aspects of cloud technology. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization. The CSA STAR Certification demonstrates that a cloud service provider conforms to the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC 27001, has addressed issues critical to cloud security as outlined in the CCM, and has been assessed against the STAR Capability Maturity Model for the management of activities in CCM control areas1. The CSA STAR Certification is a third-party independent assessment of the security of a cloud service provider and provides a high level of assurance and trust to customers2.

References:

CSA STAR Certification - Azure Compliance | Microsoft Learn

STAR | CSA

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

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

 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 270011. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization.

ISO/IEC 27002 is a standard that provides a code of practice for information security controls, but it does not provide specific guidance for cloud services. NIST SP 800-146 is a publication that provides an overview of cloud computing, its characteristics, service models, deployment models, and security considerations, but it does not provide a standard for selecting controls for cloud services. CSA CCM is a framework that provides detailed understanding of security concepts and principles that are aligned to the Cloud Security Alliance guidance in 13 domains, but it is not a standard that is based on ISO/IEC 27001. References:

ISO/IEC 27017:2015

[ISO/IEC 27001:2013]

[ISO/IEC 27002:2013]

[NIST SP 800-146]

[CSA CCM]

Attribute-based access control (ABAC) is a cloud-native solution that uses attributes (such as user role, location, or device) to dynamically control access. This method is highly flexible for the cloud, where user attributes and environmental factors vary, unlike traditional enterprise security models. ISACA’s CCAK emphasizes ABAC in cloud environments for its adaptability to multi-tenant architectures and complex access control requirements, aligning with CCM controls in Domain IAM-12 (Identity and Access Management) for flexible, secure access mechanisms.

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

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

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Cloud security shared responsibility model - NCSC

 The reason for designing the Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ) is to help cloud service providers document their security and compliance controls. The CAIQ is a survey provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) that consists of a set of yes/no questions that correspond to the controls of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), which is a cybersecurity framework for cloud computing. The CAIQ allows cloud service providers to demonstrate their security posture and compliance status to potential customers and auditors, as well as to identify any gaps or risks that need to be addressed. The CAIQ also enables cloud customers to assess the security capabilities of different cloud service providers and compare them based on their needs and requirements123.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option A, cloud users can use CAIQ to sign statement of work (SOW) with cloud access security brokers (CASBs), is incorrect because CAIQ is not a contract or an agreement, but a questionnaire that provides information about the security controls of a cloud service provider. A statement of work (SOW) is a document that defines the scope, deliverables, and terms of a project or service. A cloud access security broker (CASB) is a software tool or service that acts as an intermediary between cloud users and cloud service providers, providing visibility, data security, threat protection, and compliance4. Option B, cloud service providers can document roles and responsibilities for cloud security, is incorrect because CAIQ is not designed to document roles and responsibilities, but security and compliance controls. Roles and responsibilities for cloud security are defined by the shared responsibility model, which outlines how the security tasks and obligations are divided between the cloud service provider and the cloud customer5. Option D, cloud service providers need the CAIQ to improve quality of customer service, is incorrect because CAIQ is not a measure of customer service quality, but a measure of security control transparency. Customer service quality refers to how well a cloud service provider meets or exceeds the expectations and satisfaction of its customers6. References :=

What is CASB? - Cloud Security Alliance4

What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1

Shared Responsibility Model - Cloud Security Alliance5

What is CAIQ? - Panorays2

What is the Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ …3

What Is Customer Service Quality? - Salesforce.com

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

References:

Cloud Octagon Model | CSA

Cloud Security Alliance Releases Cloud Octagon Model

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.

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

References:

COSO – Control Activities - Deloitte1, section on Control Activities

Words Matter - Understanding Policies, Control Objectives, Standards …2, section on Control Objectives

Understanding Policies, Control Objectives, Standards, Guidelines …3, section on Guidelines

Internal Control Handbook4, section on Policies

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

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

A SOC 2 Type 2 report is the most comprehensive type of report for cloud service providers, as it evaluates the design and operating effectiveness of a service organization’s controls over a period of time. This type of report is specifically intended to meet the needs of customers who need assurance about the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy of the data processed by the service provider1234.

References = The importance of SOC 2 Type 2 reports for cloud service providers is discussed in various resources, including those provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance, which highlight the need for such reports to ensure the operating effectiveness of controls5678.

Using a standardized control framework enables auditors to conduct gap analyses of what a cloud service provider (CSP) offers versus what the customer requires. A standardized control framework is a set of guidelines, best practices, and criteria that help to evaluate and improve the security, privacy, and compliance of cloud computing environments. Examples of standardized control frameworks include ISO/IEC 27001/27002/27017/27018, NIST SP 800-53, CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), COBIT, etc. By using a standardized control framework, auditors can compare the CSP’s policies, procedures, and practices with the customer’s expectations and requirements, and identify any gaps or discrepancies that may pose risks or issues. A gap analysis can help the auditors to provide recommendations and suggestions to the CSP and the customer on how to close the gaps and enhance the quality and performance of the cloud services12.

References:

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

Cloud Computing Audit Program - ISACA

Shadow IT refers to the use of IT resources (hardware, software, or cloud services) within an organization without the explicit approval of the IT or governance team. This practice is often flagged in cloud audits due to potential risks of compliance violations and security threats. The CCAK documentation from ISACA highlights the need for visibility and governance over all IT assets, with specific controls listed in the CSA CCM for Cloud Governance (GOV-09). Shadow IT poses risks to data security, compliance, and can introduce vulnerabilities, as systems are not subject to organizational standards and oversight.

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

According to the definition of regression testing, it is a type of software testing that confirms that a recent program or code change has not adversely affected existing features1 It involves re-running functional and non-functional tests to ensure that previously developed and tested software still performs as expected after a change2 If the software does not perform as expected, it is called a regression. Therefore, the most important goal of regression testing is to ensure new releases do not impact previous stable features.

The other options are not correct because:

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

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

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

References: 1: Wikipedia. Regression testing - Wikipedia. [Online]. Available: 3. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 2: Katalon. What is Regression Testing? Definition, Tools, Examples - Katalon. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 3: Guru99. What is Functional Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 4: Guru99. What is Performance Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 5: Guru99. What is Recovery Testing? with Example - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023].

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.

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

References:

Set pipeline permissions - Azure Pipelines

Azure DevOps: Access, Roles and Permissions

Cloud Computing — What IT Auditors Should Really Know

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

Some examples of benchmark controls lists are:

The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), which is a comprehensive list of 133 control objectives that cover 16 domains of cloud security4.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-53, which is a catalog of 325 security and privacy controls for federal information systems and organizations, including cloud-based systems5.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) / International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 27017, which is a code of practice that provides guidance on 121 information security controls for cloud services based on ISO/IEC 270026.

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

References:

CSA Security Guidance for Cloud Computing | CSA1, section on Identify necessary security and compliance requirements

Evaluation Criteria for Cloud Infrastructure as a Service - Gartner2, section on Security Controls

Checklist: Cloud Services Provider Evaluation Criteria | Synoptek3, section on Security

Cloud Controls Matrix | CSA4, section on Overview

NIST Special Publication 800-53 - NIST Pages5, section on Abstract

ISO/IEC 27017:2015(en), Information technology — Security techniques …6, section on Scope

What is vendor management? Definition from WhatIs.com7, section on Vendor management

What is Benchmarking? Definition from WhatIs.com8, section on Benchmarking

What is Terms and Conditions? Definition from WhatIs.com9, section on Terms and Conditions

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

References:

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

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

The CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is the best tool to perform cloud security control audits, as it is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that is aligned to the CSA best practices and is considered the de-facto standard for cloud security and privacy1. The CCM provides a set of 197 control objectives that are structured in 17 domains covering all key aspects of cloud technology, such as identity and access management, data security, encryption and key management, business continuity and disaster recovery, audit assurance and compliance, and risk management1. The CCM also maps the controls to various industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and control frameworks, such as ISO 27001/27002/27017/27018, NIST SP 800-53, PCI DSS, GDPR, and others1. The CCM can be used as a tool for the systematic assessment of a cloud implementation, and provides guidance on which security controls should be implemented by which actor within the cloud supply chain1. The CCM also includes the Consensus Assessment Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ), which provides a set of “yes or no” questions based on the security controls in the CCM that can be used to assess a cloud service provider2.

The other options are not the best tools to perform cloud security control audits, as they are either not specific to cloud computing or not comprehensive enough. GDPR is a regulation that aims to protect the personal data and privacy of individuals in the European Union and the European Economic Area3, but it does not provide a framework for cloud security controls. FIPS 140-2 is a standard that specifies the security requirements for cryptographic modules used by federal agencies in the United States, but it does not cover other aspects of cloud security. ISO 27001 is a standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization, but it does not provide specific guidance for cloud services. References:

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

Cloud Controls Matrix and CAIQ v4 | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance

General Data Protection Regulation - Wikipedia

[FIPS 140-2 - Wikipedia]

[ISO/IEC 27001:2013]

The Egregious 11 refers to a list of top threats to cloud computing, as published by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) in 2019. The CSA is a leading organization dedicated to defining standards, certifications and best practices to help ensure a secure cloud computing environment. The Egregious 11 report ranks the most critical and pressing cloud security issues, such as data breaches, misconfigurations, insufficient identity and access management, and account hijacking. The report also provides recommendations for security, compliance, risk and technology practitioners to mitigate these threats. The Egregious 11 is based on a survey of industry experts and a review of current literature and media reports. The report is intended to raise awareness of the risks and challenges associated with cloud computing and promote strong security practices.12 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Auditing, page 961; CSA Top Threats to Cloud Computing: Egregious 11

Cryptography and authentication are good candidates for continuous auditing, as they are critical aspects of cloud security that require constant monitoring and verification. Cryptography and authentication refer to the methods and techniques that ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and communications in the cloud environment. Cryptography involves the use of encryption algorithms and keys to protect data from unauthorized access or modification. Authentication involves the use of credentials and tokens to verify the identity and access rights of users or devices. Continuous auditing can help to assess the effectiveness and compliance of cryptography and authentication controls, such as data encryption, key management, password policies, multifactor authentication, single sign-on, etc. Continuous auditing can also help to detect and alert any anomalies or issues that may compromise or affect cryptography and authentication, such as data breaches, key leakage, password cracking, unauthorized access, etc123.

Procedures (A) are not good candidates for continuous auditing, as they are not specific or measurable aspects of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Procedures refer to the steps or actions that are performed to achieve a certain objective or result in a specific domain or context. Procedures may vary depending on the type, nature, or complexity of the task or process involved. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Procedures may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess their effectiveness or compliance123.

Governance (B) is not a good candidate for continuous auditing, as it is not a specific or measurable aspect of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Governance refers to the framework or system that defines the roles, responsibilities, policies, standards, procedures, and practices for managing and overseeing an organization or a domain. Governance may involve multiple stakeholders, such as management, board of directors, regulators, auditors, customers, etc., who have different interests, expectations, or perspectives. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Governance may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess its effectiveness or compliance123.

Documentation quality (D) is not a good candidate for continuous auditing, as it is not a specific or measurable aspect of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Documentation quality refers to the degree to which the documents that describe or support an organization or a domain are accurate, complete, consistent, relevant, and understandable. Documentation quality may depend on various factors, such as the purpose, audience, format, style, language, structure, content, etc., of the documents involved. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Documentation quality may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess its effectiveness or compliance123. 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

Impact analysis is the aspect of risk management that involves identifying the potential reputational and financial harm when an incident occurs. Impact analysis is the process of estimating the consequences or effects of a risk event on the business objectives, operations, processes, or functions. Impact analysis helps to measure and quantify the severity or magnitude of the risk event, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their impact. Impact analysis also helps to determine the appropriate level of response and mitigation for each risk event, as well as to allocate the necessary resources and budget for risk management123.

Likelihood (A) is not the aspect of risk management that involves identifying the potential reputational and financial harm when an incident occurs. Likelihood is the aspect of risk management that involves estimating the probability or frequency of a risk event occurring. Likelihood is the process of assessing and evaluating the factors or causes that may trigger or influence a risk event, such as threats, vulnerabilities, assumptions, uncertainties, etc. Likelihood helps to measure and quantify the chance or possibility of a risk event happening, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their likelihood123.

Mitigation (B) is not the aspect of risk management that involves identifying the potential reputational and financial harm when an incident occurs. Mitigation is the aspect of risk management that involves reducing or minimizing the likelihood or impact of a risk event. Mitigation is the process of implementing and applying controls or actions that can prevent, avoid, transfer, or accept a risk event, depending on the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization. Mitigation helps to improve and enhance the security and resilience of the organization against potential risks, as well as to optimize the cost and benefit of risk management123.

Residual risk © is not the aspect of risk management that involves identifying the potential reputational and financial harm when an incident occurs. Residual risk is the aspect of risk management that involves measuring and monitoring the remaining or leftover risk after mitigation. Residual risk is the process of evaluating and reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of the mitigation controls or actions, as well as identifying and addressing any gaps or issues that may arise. Residual risk helps to ensure that the actual level of risk is aligned with the desired level of risk, as well as to update and improve the risk management strategy and plan123. References :=

Risk Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide | SafetyCulture

Risk Assessment and Analysis Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative - ISACA

Risk Management Process - Risk Management | Risk Assessment | Risk …

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

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

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

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

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the primary objective for an auditor to understand the organization’s context for a cloud audit is to validate an understanding of the organization’s current state and how the cloud audit plan fits into the existing audit approach1. The auditor should consider the organization’s business objectives, strategies, risks, and opportunities, as well as the regulatory and contractual requirements that apply to the organization’s use of cloud services. The auditor should also assess the organization’s cloud maturity level, governance structure, policies and procedures, roles and responsibilities, and existing controls related to cloud services. The auditor should then align the cloud audit plan with the organization’s context and ensure that it covers the relevant scope, objectives, criteria, and methodology.

The other options are not the primary objective for an auditor to understand the organization’s context for a cloud audit. Option A is a possible audit procedure, but not the main goal of understanding the organization’s context. Option C is a possible audit outcome, but not the main purpose of understanding the organization’s context. Option D is a possible audit finding, but not the main reason for understanding the organization’s context. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 12-13.

 The objective that is most appropriate to measure the effectiveness of password policy is newly created account credentials satisfy requirements. This is because password policy is a set of rules and guidelines that define the characteristics and usage of passwords in a system or network. Password policy aims to enhance the security and confidentiality of the system or network by preventing unauthorized access, data breaches, and identity theft. Therefore, the best way to evaluate the effectiveness of password policy is to check whether the newly created account credentials meet the requirements of the policy, such as length, complexity, expiration, and history. This objective can be measured by conducting periodic audits, reviews, or tests of the account creation process and verifying that the passwords comply with the policy standards. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain IAM-02: User ID Credentials, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to manage user ID credentials for cloud services and data."1 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 4: A Threat Analysis Methodology for Cloud Using CCM, page 76

The reason for designing the Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ) is to enable cloud service providers to document their security and compliance controls in a standardized and transparent way. The CAIQ is a set of yes/no questions that correspond to the controls of the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), which is a framework of best practices for cloud security. The CAIQ helps cloud service providers to demonstrate their adherence to the CCM and to provide evidence of their security posture to potential customers, auditors, and regulators. The CAIQ also helps cloud customers and auditors to assess the security capabilities of cloud service providers and to compare different providers based on their responses. The CAIQ is part of the CSA STAR program, which is a cloud security assurance program that offers various levels of certification and attestation for cloud service providers.12 References := What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance3; Consensus Assessment Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ) v3.1 [No | CSA4

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

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 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

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

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Understanding the Shared Responsibilities Model in Cloud Services - ISACA

SLAs in cloud computing define performance metrics and uptime commitments, making them crucial for monitoring and measuring service delivery against predefined benchmarks. Metrics from SLAs help in tracking service performance, compliance with contractual obligations, and cloud service provider accountability. ISACA’s CCAK outlines the importance of SLAs for cloud governance and risk management, as they provide a measurable baseline that informs cloud audit activities (referenced in CCM under Governance, Risk, and Compliance - GOV-05).

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

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

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

References:

STAR Continuous | CSA

STAR Certification | CSA

SOC 2 vs CSA STAR: Which One Should You Choose?

A Type 1 SOC report assesses whether controls are appropriately designed at a specific point in time, while a Type 2 SOC report tests the operating effectiveness of these controls over a period. For cloud auditing, Type 2 is often preferred for its comprehensive approach to both design and effectiveness over time. The CCAK curriculum emphasizes understanding these reports as critical tools in auditing cloud service providers (referenced in the CCAK content on Assurance and Transparency and the CSA STAR framework).

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

Risk reduction is a risk treatment approach where controls are implemented to reduce the likelihood or impact of a risk event. In this scenario, while the SaaS is still in use, the organization has chosen to limit exposure by avoiding the processing of secret customer data, thus reducing the risk of unauthorized disclosure. This aligns with ISACA’s guidance in CCAK, which emphasizes limiting risk exposure by controlling data handling and processing policies, a practice that is documented in CSA’s Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) guidelines for data protection and data minimization (CSA CCM Domain DSI-05, Data Security and Information Lifecycle Management).

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

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

References:

STAR Registry | CSA

STAR | CSA

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

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

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

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

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

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

The auditor’s next course of action should be to review the contract and DR capability of the cloud service provider. The contract should specify the roles and responsibilities of both parties regarding disaster recovery, as well as the service level agreements (SLAs) and recovery time objectives (RTOs) for the critical application. The DR capability should demonstrate that the cloud service provider has a plan that is aligned with the organization’s requirements and expectations, and that it is tested annually and validated by independent auditors. The auditor should also verify that the organization has a process to monitor and review the cloud service provider’s performance and compliance with the contract and SLAs.

Planning an audit of the provider (B) may not be feasible or necessary, as the auditor 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 auditor should rely on the provider’s audit reports and certifications to assess their compliance with relevant standards and regulations.

Reviewing the security white paper of the provider © may not be sufficient or relevant, as the security white paper may not cover the specific aspects of disaster recovery for the critical application, or may not reflect the current state of the provider’s security controls and practices. The security white paper may also be biased or outdated, as it is produced by the provider themselves.

Reviewing the provider’s audit reports (D) may be helpful, but not enough, as the audit reports may not address the specific requirements and expectations of the organization for disaster recovery, or may not cover the latest changes or incidents that may affect the provider’s DR capability. The audit reports may also have limitations or qualifications that may affect their reliability or validity. References :=

Audit a Disaster Recovery Plan | AlertFind

ISACA Introduces New Audit Programs for Business Continuity/Disaster …

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

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

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

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

The Customer’s Responsibility in the Cloud Shared Responsibility Model - ISACA

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

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

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

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

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

Cloud Risk—10 Principles and a Framework for Assessment - ISACA

This situation poses a significant concern for a cloud auditor because it indicates a potential gap in the technical team’s ability to effectively manage and secure the IaaS platform provided by the alternative vendor. Without proper training on the specific features, security practices, and operational procedures of the new platform, the organization may face increased risks of misconfiguration, security vulnerabilities, and inefficiencies in cloud operations. It is crucial for the technical team to have a comprehensive understanding of all platforms in use to ensure they can maintain the security and performance standards required for a robust cloud environment.

References = The concern is based on common cloud auditing challenges, such as controlling and monitoring user access, and ensuring the IT team is equipped to manage the cloud environment effectively12. Additionally, best practices suggest that network segmentation, user authentication, and access control are critical areas to address in a cloud audit3. These principles are widely recognized in the field of cloud security and compliance.