The board of directors is the ultimate authority and accountability for ensuring the objectives of an information security framework are being met, as they are responsible for setting the strategic direction, approving the policies, overseeing the performance, and ensuring the compliance of the organization. The board of directors also delegates the authority and resources to the information security officer, the steering committee, and the internal audit manager, who are involved in the design, implementation, monitoring, and improvement of the information security framework.
References = CISM Review Manual, 27th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1, page 2131; CISM Online Review Course, Module 4, Lesson 1, Topic 12; CISM domain 1: Information security governance Updated 2022

Purchasing cybersecurity insurance is a textbook example of risk transfer - transferring financial risk to a third party (the insurer).
"Risk transfer shifts the impact of a risk to another party, such as through insurance or outsourcing."
- CISM Review Manual 15th Edition, Chapter 2: Risk Management, Section: Risk Treatment*

communicating the quantitative loss associated with the risk scenarios and the risk treatment options would be the most helpful to gain senior management support, as it helps to demonstrate the value and effectiveness of the risk treatment options in terms of reducing the likelihood and impact of the risk. Quantitative loss also helps to compare the cost and benefit of the risk treatment options and to prioritize the most critical risks.
Industry benchmarks, threat analysis, and root cause analysis may be useful for understanding and assessing the risk, but they do not directly measure the performance of the risk treatment options.
References = Five Key Considerations When Developing Information Security Risk Treatment Plans, CISM Domain 2: Information Risk Management (IRM) [2022 update]

The BEST course of action when an online company discovers a network attack in progress is to isolate the affected network segment. This prevents the attacker from gaining further access to the network and limits the scope of the attack. Dumping event logs to removable media and enabling trace logging may be useful for forensic purposes, but should not be the first course of action in the midst of an active attack. Shutting off all network access points would be too drastic and would prevent legitimate traffic from accessing the network.

A formalized risk management framework (A) best ensures that risk appetite and risk tolerance are consistently applied during risk treatment decisions (mitigate, transfer, avoid, accept). In CISM risk management, risk appetite must be translated into decision criteria, escalation thresholds, approval authorities, and consistent evaluation methods-all of which are defined and enforced through a framework. Training and awareness (B) support culture, but they do not guarantee that treatment choices align with appetite in a repeatable, auditable way. Quantitative measurement (C) can improve precision, but even strong numbers can be misused without governance rules that tie outcomes to appetite thresholds and approval requirements. Automated KRI monitoring (D) helps track risk conditions, but it primarily supports ongoing monitoring, not the structured decision-making needed in treatment selection. A risk framework is the mechanism that institutionalizes appetite into processes, roles, reporting, and acceptance criteria.
References: ISACA CISM Review Manual (Risk management-risk appetite/tolerance, risk response, governance and oversight); CISM Exam Content Outline (Domain 1).