The information security manager's primary focus during the development of a critical system storing highly confidential data should be ensuring the amount of residual risk is acceptable. Residual risk is the level of cyber risk remaining after all the security controls are accounted for, any threats have been addressed and the organization is meeting security standards. It's the risk that slips through the cracks of the system. For a critical system storing highly confidential data, the residual risk should be as low as possible, and within the organization's risk appetite and tolerance. The information security manager should monitor and review the residual risk throughout the system development life cycle, and ensure that it is communicated and approved by the appropriate stakeholders. The other options are not the primary focus, although they may be part of the security objectives and activities. Reducing the number of vulnerabilities detected is a desirable outcome, but it does not necessarily mean that the residual risk is acceptable, as some vulnerabilities may have a higher impact or likelihood than others. Avoiding identified system threats is a preventive measure, but it does not account for unknown or emerging threats that may pose a residual risk to the system. Complying with regulatory requirements is a mandatory obligation, but it does not guarantee that the residual risk is acceptable, as regulations may not cover all aspects of security or reflect the specific context and needs of the organization.

Threat intelligence is the most helpful method for protecting an enterprise from advanced persistent threats (APTs), as it provides relevant and actionable information about the sources, methods, and intentions of the adversaries who conduct APTs. Threat intelligence can help to identify and anticipate the APTs that target the enterprise, as well as to enhance the detection, prevention, and response capabilities of the information security program. Threat intelligence can also help to reduce the impact and duration of the APTs, as well as to improve the resilience and recovery of the enterprise. Threat intelligence can be obtained from various sources, such as internal data, external feeds, industry peers, government agencies, or security vendors.
The other options are not as helpful as threat intelligence, as they do not provide a specific and timely way to protect the enterprise from APTs. Updated security policies are important to establish the rules, roles, and responsibilities for information security within the enterprise, as well as to align the information security program with the business objectives, standards, and regulations. However, updated security policies alone are not enough to protect the enterprise from APTs, as they do not address the dynamic and sophisticated nature of the APTs, nor do they provide the technical or operational measures to counter the APTs. Defined security standards are important to specify the minimum requirements and best practices for information security within the enterprise, as well as to ensure the consistency, quality, and compliance of the information security program. However, defined security standards alone are not enough to protect the enterprise from APTs, as they do not account for the customized and targeted nature of the APTs, nor do they provide the situational or contextual awareness to deal with the APTs. Regular antivirus updates are important to keep the antivirus software up to date with the latest signatures and definitions of the known malware, viruses, and other malicious code. However, regular antivirus updates alone are not enough to protect the enterprise from APTs, as they do not detect or prevent the unknown or zero-day malware, viruses, or other malicious code that are often used by the APTs, nor do they provide the behavioral or heuristic analysis to identify the APTs. References =
* CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, ISACA, 2022, pp. 211-212, 215-216, 233-234, 237-238.
* CISM Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, ISACA, 2022, QID 1021.
* Advanced Persistent Threats and Nation-State Actors 1
* Book Review: Advanced Persistent Threats 2
* Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) Protection 3
* Establishing Advanced Persistent Security to Combat Long-Term Threats 4
* What is the difference between Anti - APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) and ATP (Advanced Threat Protection)5

= Establishing metrics for each milestone is the best way to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders, as it provides a clear and measurable way to track the progress, performance, and outcomes of the information security governance framework. Metrics are quantifiable indicators that can be used to evaluate the achievement of specific objectives, goals, or standards. Metrics can also help to demonstrate the value, benefits, and return on investment of the information security program, as well as to identify and address the gaps, issues, or risks. Metrics for each milestone should be aligned with the organization's strategy, vision, and mission, as well as with the expectations and needs of the stakeholders. Metrics for each milestone should also be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound), as well as consistent, reliable, and transparent.
The other options are not as important as establishing metrics for each milestone, as they do not provide a comprehensive and holistic way to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders. A control self- assessment (CSA) process is a technique to involve the staff in assessing the design, implementation, and effectiveness of the information security controls. It can help to increase the awareness, ownership, and accountability of the staff, as well as to identify and mitigate the risks. However, a CSA process alone is not enough to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders, as it does not measure the overall performance or maturity of the information security program. Automated reporting to stakeholders is a method to provide timely, accurate, and consistent information to the stakeholders about the status, results, and issues of the information security program. It can help to facilitate the communication, collaboration, and decision making among the stakeholders, as well as to ensure the compliance and transparency of the information security program. However, automated reporting alone is not enough to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders, as it does not evaluate the achievement or impact of the information security program. A monitoring process for the security policy is a process to ensure that the security policy is implemented, enforced, and reviewed in accordance with the organization's objectives, standards, and regulations. It can help to maintain the relevance, adequacy, and effectiveness of the security policy, as well as to incorporate the feedback, changes, and improvements. However, a monitoring process alone is not enough to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders, as it does not cover the other aspects of the information security program, such as governance, risk management, incident management, or business continuity. References =
* CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, ISACA, 2022, pp. 211-212, 215-216, 233-234, 237-238.
* CISM Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, ISACA, 2022, QID 1018.
* CISM domain 1: Information security governance [Updated 2022], Infosec, 1.
* Key Performance Indicators for Security Governance, Part 1, ISACA Journal, Volume 6, 2020, 2.