The best approach for selecting controls to minimize risk is to perform a risk assessment. A risk assessment is a process that identifies, analyzes, and evaluates the risks that could affect the organization's objectives or operations. A risk assessment helps to determine the likelihood and impact of the risks, and to prioritize them based on their severity and relevance. A risk assessment also helps to select the most appropriate and effective controls to minimize the risks, such as avoiding, reducing, transferring, or accepting the risks. A risk assessment is the best approach for selecting controls, because it helps to align the controls with the organization's risk profile, risk appetite, and risk objectives, and to ensure that the controls are adequate, suitable, and cost-effective. The other options are not the best approach for selecting controls, although they may be part of or derived from the risk assessment. Industry best practice review, cost-benefit analysis, and control-effectiveness evaluation are all activities that can help to support or improve the control selection, but they are not the best approach for selecting controls. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, page 4-13.

The PRIMARY purpose of using control metrics is to evaluate the variance against objectives, because control metrics are measures that indicate the performance and effectiveness of the controls in achieving the desired outcomes and goals. Control metrics can help to identify and quantify the gaps or deviations between the actual and expected results of the controls, and to provide feedback and improvement for the control design and implementation. The other options are not the primary purpose, because:
* Option A: Amount of risk reduced by compensating controls is a result of using control metrics, but not the primary purpose. Compensating controls are controls that provide an alternative or additional level of protection or assurance when the primary or preferred controls are not feasible or effective. Control metrics can help to measure and monitor the amount of risk reduced by compensating controls, but they are not the only or the most important measure of the control performance and effectiveness.
* Option B: Amount of risk present in the organization is an input to using control metrics, but not the primary purpose. The amount of risk present in the organization is the level of exposure and uncertainty that the organization faces in pursuing its objectives and goals. Control metrics can help to assess and report the amount of risk present in the organization, but they are not the only or the most important measure of the risk profile and exposure.
* Option D: Number of incidents is a source of using control metrics, but not the primary purpose.
Incidents are events or occurrences that disrupt or threaten the normal operations or security of the organization. Control metrics can help to analyze and respond to the number of incidents, but they are not the only or the most important measure of the incident management and resolution. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 120.

Cross-site scripting (XSS) and SQL injection are two common types of web application attacks that can compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and systems. XSS allows an attacker to inject malicious code into a web page that is viewed by other users, while SQL injection allows an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on a database server by manipulating the input parameters of a web application.
Both attacks can result in data theft, unauthorized access, defacement, denial of service, and more.
To mitigate these attacks, the best option is to require the software vendor to remediate the vulnerabilities by applying secure coding practices, such as input validation, output encoding, parameterized queries, and HTML sanitization. These techniques can prevent or limit the impact of XSS and SQL injection by ensuring that user input is not interpreted as code or commands by the web browser or the database server. The software vendor should also provide regular updates and patches to fix any known or newly discovered vulnerabilities.
The other options are not effective or acceptable ways to mitigate these attacks. Monitoring the databases for abnormal activity can help detect and respond to SQL injection attacks, but it does not prevent them from happening or address the root cause of the vulnerability. Approving an exception to allow the software to continue operating can expose the organization to unnecessary risks and liabilities, as well as violate compliance requirements and standards. Accepting the risk and letting the vendor run the software as is can also have serious consequences for the organization, as it implies that the potential impact and likelihood of the attacks are low or acceptable, which may not be the case. References =
* IT Risk Resources | ISACA
* CRISC Certification | Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control | ISACA
* Cross Site Scripting Prevention Cheat Sheet - OWASP
* A novel technique to prevent SQL injection and cross-site scripting attacks using Knuth-Morris-Pratt string match algorithm | EURASIP Journal on Information Security | Full Text
* Difference Between XSS and SQL Injection - GeeksforGeeks

A risk response plan is a document that outlines the actions to be taken to address the identified risk scenarios. A risk response plan should include the objectives, scope, roles and responsibilities, resources, timelines, and metrics for each risk response. Assigning ownership of the risk response plan is the most effective way to mitigate identified risk scenarios, as it ensures accountability, clarity, and communication among the stakeholders involved in the risk management process. Assigning ownership also helps to monitor and evaluate the progress and effectiveness of the risk response plan, and to make adjustments as needed. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response and Mitigation, Section 3.3: Risk Response Plan, p. 152-155.

The best way for a risk practitioner to help management prioritize risk response is to assess risk against business objectives. This means comparing the level and nature of the risks with the goals and strategies of the organization, and determining which risks pose the most significant threat or opportunity to the achievement of those objectives. By assessing risk against business objectives, the risk practitioner can help management identify the most critical and relevant risks, and prioritize the risk response actions accordingly. The risk response actions should be aligned with the organization's risk appetite, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to take in order to meet its strategic goals1. The other options are not the best ways for a risk practitioner to help management prioritize risk response, as they are either less effective or less specific than assessing risk against business objectives. Aligning business objectives to the risk profile is a way of ensuring that the organization's objectives are realistic and achievable, given the current and potential risks that the organization faces. However, this is not the same as prioritizing risk response, as it does not indicate which risks should be addressed first or how they should be managed. Implementing an organization-specific risk taxonomy is a way of creating a common language and classification system for describing and categorizing risks. This can help improve the consistency and clarity of risk communication and reporting across the organization. However, this is not the same as prioritizing risk response, as it does not measure the likelihood and impact of the risks, or their relation to the organization's objectives. Explaining risk details to management is a way of providing information and insight on the sources, drivers, consequences, and responses of the risks. This can help increase the awareness and understanding of the risks among the decision makers and stakeholders. However, this is not the same as prioritizing risk response, as it does not suggest or recommend the best course of action for managing the risks. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section
2.1.6, Page 57.