The best way to achieve compliance with new global regulations related to the protection of personal information is to determine the current and desired state of controls, as this helps the information security manager to identify the gaps and requirements for compliance, and to prioritize and implement the necessary actions and measures to meet the regulatory standards. The current state of controls refers to the existing level of protection and compliance of the personal information, while the desired state of controls refers to the target level of protection and compliance that is required by the new regulations. By comparing the current and desired state of controls, the information security manager can assess the maturity and effectiveness of the information security program, and plan and execute a risk treatment plan to address the risks and issues related to the protection of personal information. Executing a risk treatment plan, reviewing contracts and statements of work (SOWs) with vendors, and implementing data regionalization controls are also important, but not as important as determining the current and desired state of controls, as they are dependent on the outcome of the gap analysis and the risk assessment, and may not be sufficient or appropriate to achieve compliance with the new regulations. References = CISM Review Manual 2023, page 491; CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual 2023, page 352; ISACA CISM - iSecPrep, page 203

The best way to proceed when an independent penetration test results show a high-rated vulnerability in a cloud-based application that is close to going live is to assess whether the vulnerability is within the organization's risk tolerance levels. This is because the organization should not implement the application without understanding the potential impact and likelihood of the vulnerability being exploited, and the cost and benefit of fixing or mitigating the vulnerability. The organization should also consider the contractual and legal obligations, service level agreements, and performance expectations of the cloud service provider and the application users. By assessing the risk tolerance levels, the organization can make an informed and rational decision on whether to accept, transfer, avoid, or reduce the risk, and how to allocate the resources and responsibilities for managing the risk.
Implementing the application and requesting the cloud service provider to fix the vulnerability is not the best way to proceed, because it exposes the organization to unnecessary and unacceptable risk, and it may violate the terms and conditions of the cloud service contract. The organization should not rely on the cloud service provider to fix the vulnerability, as the provider may not have the same level of urgency, accountability, or capability as the organization. The organization should also not assume that the vulnerability will not be exploited, as cyberattackers may target the cloud-based application due to its high visibility, accessibility, and value.
Commissioning further penetration tests to validate initial test results is not the best way to proceed, because it may delay the implementation of the application, and it may not provide any additional or useful information.
The organization should trust the results of the independent penetration test, as it is conducted by a qualified and objective third party. The organization should also not waste time and resources on conducting redundant or unnecessary tests, as it may affect the budget, schedule, and quality of the project.
Postponing the implementation until the vulnerability has been fixed is not the best way to proceed, because it may not be feasible or desirable for the organization. The organization should consider the business impact and opportunity cost of postponing the implementation, as it may affect the organization's reputation, revenue, and customer satisfaction. The organization should also consider the technical feasibility and complexity of fixing the vulnerability, as it may require significant changes or modifications to the application or the cloud environment. The organization should not adopt a zero-risk or risk-averse approach, as it may hinder the organization's innovation and competitiveness. References =
* ISACA, CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, 2020, pages 97-98, 101-102, 105-106, 109-110.
* ISACA, CISM Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 12th Edition, 2020, question ID
1025.

The biggest challenge is linking KRIs to specific risks to ensure that they accurately measure and signal potential exposures. If KRIs aren't directly connected to real risks, they won't effectively support risk management efforts.
"A key challenge in developing KRIs is ensuring that they are directly linked to specific risks to provide meaningful and actionable insights."
- CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 1: Information Security Governance, Section: Key Risk Indicators (KRIs)* ISACA's practice questions highlight the importance of clear linkage for effective risk measurement.