A capability maturity model (CMM) is a framework that helps organizations assess and improve their processes and capabilities in various domains, such as software development, project management, information security, and others1. A CMM defines a set of levels or stages that represent the degree of maturity or effectiveness of an organization's processes and capabilities in a specific domain. Each level has a set of criteria or characteristics that an organization must meet to achieve that level of maturity. A CMM also provides guidance and best practices on how to progress from one level to another, and how to measure and monitor the performance and improvement of the processes and capabilities2.
A CMM is most helpful in determining an organization's current capacity to mitigate risks, because it provides a systematic and objective way to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the organization's processes and capabilities related to risk management. A CMM can help an organization identify the gaps and opportunities for improvement in its risk management practices, and prioritize the actions and resources needed to address them. A CMM can also help an organization benchmark its risk management maturity against industry standards or best practices, and demonstrate its compliance with regulatory or contractual requirements3.
The other options are not as helpful as a CMM in determining an organization's current capacity to mitigate risks, because they are either more specific, limited, or dependent on a CMM. A vulnerability assessment is a process of identifying and analyzing the vulnerabilities in an organization's systems, networks, or applications, and their potential impact on the organization's assets, operations, or reputation. A vulnerability assessment can help an organization identify the sources and levels of risk, but it does not provide a comprehensive or holistic view of the organization's risk management maturity or effectiveness4. IT security risk and exposure is a measure of the likelihood and impact of a security breach or incident on an organization's IT assets, operations, or reputation. IT security risk and exposure can help an organization quantify and communicate the level of risk, but it does not provide a framework or guidance on how to improve the organization's risk management processes or capabilities5. A business impact analysis (BIA) is a process of identifying and evaluating the potential effects of a disruption or disaster on an organization's critical business functions, processes, or resources. A BIA can help an organization determine the priorities and requirements for business continuity and disaster recovery, but it does not provide a method or standard for assessing or enhancing the organization's risk management maturity or effectiveness. References = 1:
CMMI Institute - What is CMMI? - Capability Maturity Model Integration 2: Capability Maturity Model and Risk Register Integration: The Right ... 3: Performing Risk Assessments of Emerging Technologies - ISACA 4: CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2 5: CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3 : CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.4

The best way to identify the risk associated with a social engineering attack is to test user knowledge of information security practices. Social engineering is a type of attack that exploits human psychology and behavior to manipulate, deceive, or influence users into divulging sensitive information, granting unauthorized access, or performing malicious actions. Therefore, user knowledge of information security practices is a key factor that affects the likelihood and impact of a social engineering attack. By testing user knowledge of information security practices, such as through quizzes, surveys, or simulated attacks, the information security manager can measure the level of awareness, understanding, and compliance of the users, and identify the gaps, weaknesses, or vulnerabilities that need to be addressed.
Monitoring the intrusion detection system (IDS) (A) is a possible way to detect a social engineering attack, but not to identify the risk associated with it. An IDS is a system that monitors network or system activities and alerts or responds to any suspicious or malicious events. However, an IDS may not be able to prevent or recognize all types of social engineering attacks, especially those that rely on human interaction, such as phishing, vishing, or baiting. Moreover, monitoring the IDS is a reactive rather than proactive approach, as it only reveals the occurrence or consequences of a social engineering attack, not the potential or likelihood of it.
Reviewing single sign-on (SSO) authentication lags (B) is not a relevant way to identify the risk associated with a social engineering attack. SSO is a method of authentication that allows users to access multiple applications or systems with one set of credentials. Authentication lags are delays or failures in the authentication process that may affect the user experience or performance. However, authentication lags are not directly related to social engineering attacks, as they do not indicate the user's knowledge of information security practices, nor the attacker's attempts or success in compromising the user's credentials or access.
Performing a business risk assessment of the email filtering system (D) is also not a relevant way to identify the risk associated with a social engineering attack. An email filtering system is a system that scans, filters, and blocks incoming or outgoing emails based on predefined rules or criteria, such as spam, viruses, or phishing. A business risk assessment is a process that evaluates the potential threats, vulnerabilities, and impacts to the organization's business objectives, processes, and assets. However, performing a business risk assessment of the email filtering system does not address the risk associated with a social engineering attack, as it only focuses on the technical aspects and performance of the system, not the human factors and behavior of the users.
References = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, Chapter 2: Information Risk Management, Section: Risk Identification, Subsection: Threat Identification, page 87-881

The greatest challenge with assessing emerging risk in an organization is the incomplete identification of threats, as emerging risks are often new, unknown, or unfamiliar, and may not be fully understood or assessed. Incomplete identification of threats can lead to gaps in risk analysis and management, and expose the organization to unexpected or unprepared scenarios. The other options, such as lack of a risk framework, ineffective security controls, or presence of known vulnerabilities, are not specific to emerging risks, and may apply to any type of risk assessment. References:
* https://committee.iso.org/sites/tc262/home/projects/ongoing/iso-31022-guidelines-for-impl-2.html
* https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/newsletters/atisaca/2023/volume-6/emerging-risk- analysis
* https://projectriskcoach.com/emerging-risks/

Strengthening endpoint security is the most immediate focus when shifting to a work-from-home model with an increased need for remote access security, as this reduces the risk of unauthorized access, data leakage, malware infection, and other threats that may compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the organization's information assets. Moving to a zero trust access model, enabling network-level authentication, and enhancing cyber response capability are also important, but not as urgent as strengthening endpoint security, as they require more time, resources, and planning to implement effectively. References = CISM Review Manual 2023, page 1561; CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2023, page
302; ISACA CISM - iSecPrep, page 153