Key risk indicators (KRIs) are the most useful to include in an information security status report for management because they measure and report the level of risk exposure or performance against predefined risk thresholds or targets, and alert management of any deviations or issues that may require attention or action. List of recent security events is not very useful to include in an information security status report for management because it does not provide any analysis or evaluation of the events or their impact on the organization's objectives or performance. Review of information security policies is not very useful to include in an information security status report for management because it does not reflect any progress or results of implementing or enforcing the policies. Information security budget requests are not very useful to include in an information security status report for management because they do not indicate any value or benefit of investing in information security initiatives or controls. Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-6/how-to-measure-the-effectiveness-of-information-security-using-iso-27004

The most important consideration when determining which type of failover site to employ is the recovery time objectives (RTOs). A failover site is a backup site that can be used to restore the functionality and operations of an organization's primary site in the event of a disaster or disruption. There are different types of failover sites, such as hot sites, warm sites, and cold sites, that vary in terms of availability, cost, and complexity. A recovery time objective (RTO) is a metric that defines the maximum acceptable amount of time that an organization can tolerate to restore a system or an application after a disaster or disruption. By determining the RTOs for each system or application, the organization can choose the most suitable type of failover site that can meet its recovery needs and expectations. For example, if the RTO for a critical system is very low, the organization may opt for a hot site that can provide immediate failover and minimal downtime. However, if the RTO for a non-critical system is high, the organization may choose a cold site that requires manual setup and activation, but has lower cost and maintenance. The other options are not the most important consideration when determining which type of failover site to employ, although they may be some factors or constraints that affect the decision. Reciprocal agreements are arrangements between two or more organizations that agree to provide backup facilities or resources to each other in case of a disaster or disruption. Reciprocal agreements can help reduce the cost and complexity of setting up and maintaining a failover site, but they may not guarantee the availability or compatibility of the backup facilities or resources. Disaster recovery test results are outcomes of testing and validating the functionality and performance of a failover site. Disaster recovery test results can help evaluate and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of a failover site, but they do not determine which type of failover site to employ. Data retention requirements are policies and regulations that define how long and in what format an organization must store its data. Data retention requirements can affect the design and configuration of a failover site, but they do not dictate which type of failover site to employ

Decreasing false positives is the best indicator that the information security manager has tuned the system to address senior management's concern that the organization's intrusion prevention system (IPS) may repeatedly disrupt business operations. False positives are alerts generated by the IPS when it mistakenly blocks legitimate traffic or activity, causing disruption or downtime. Decreasing false positives means that the IPS has been configured to reduce such errors and minimize unnecessary interruptions. Increasing false negatives is not a good indicator because it means that the IPS has failed to detect or block malicious traffic or activity, increasing the risk of compromise or damage. Decreasing false negatives is not a good indicator because it does not affect business operations, but rather improves security detection or prevention. Increasing false positives is not a good indicator because it means that the IPS has increased its errors and interruptions, worsening senior management's concern. Reference: https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2017/volume-6/the-value-of-penetration-testing https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-5/security-scanning-versus-penetration-testing