The most concerning factor for a risk practitioner reviewing risk action plans for documented IT risk scenarios is that many action plans were discontinued after senior management accepted the risk. Risk action plans are documents that define the roles, responsibilities, procedures, and resources for implementing the risk responses and strategies for the IT risk scenarios. Risk action plans help to reduce, transfer, avoid, or accept the IT risks, and to monitor and report on the IT risk performance and improvement. Discontinuing risk action plans after senior management accepted the risk is a major concern, because it may indicate that the risk acceptance decision was not based on a proper risk analysis or evaluation, or that the risk acceptance decision was not communicated or coordinated with the relevant stakeholders, such as the board, management, business units, and IT functions. Discontinuing risk action plans after senior management accepted the risk may also create challenges or risks for the organization, such as compliance, legal, reputational, or operational risks, or conflicts or inconsistencies with the organization's risk appetite, risk objectives, or risk policies. The other options are not as concerning as discontinuing risk action plans after senior management accepted the risk, although they may also pose some difficulties or limitations for the risk management process. Individuals outside IT managing action plans for the risk scenarios, target dates for completion missing from some action plans, and senior management approving multiple changes to several action plans are all factors that could affect the quality and timeliness of the risk management process, but they do not necessarily indicate a lack of risk management accountability or oversight. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1, page 4-32.

Computer-enabled fraud is the use of information technology (IT) to commit or conceal fraudulent activities, such as theft, manipulation, or unauthorized access of data, systems, or networks. Computer-enabled fraud can pose significant risks to an organization, such as financial loss, reputational damage, legal liability, or regulatory sanctions. Therefore, an organization should establish a comprehensive and effective framework to prevent, detect, and respond to computer-enabled fraud. The framework should involve three lines of defense, which are the roles and responsibilities of different functions within theorganization to manage and control risks. The first line of defense consists of the business owners, whose role is to identify, assess, and manage risks, including computer-enabled fraud risks. The primary responsibility of the first line of defense related to computer-enabled fraud is to implement processes to detect and deter fraud. This means designing and executing controls that can prevent or reduce the occurrence of computer-enabled fraud, such as authentication, authorization, encryption, logging, or segregation of duties. This also means monitoring and reporting any suspicious or anomalous activities or transactions that may indicate computer-enabled fraud, such as unusual patterns, volumes, or frequencies of data or system access or usage. Implementing processes to detect and deter fraud can help the first line of defense to protect the organization's assets, data, and reputation from computer-enabled fraud, and to comply with the organization's policies and regulations. References = Three Lines of Defence, Roles of Three Lines of Defense for Information Security and Governance, THE THREE LINES OF DEFENSE IN EFFECTIVE RISK MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL, The Three Lines of Defense.

A multinational organization that operates in different countries should be aware of the legal and regulatory requirements of each jurisdiction. Some countries may have strict privacy laws that prohibit or limit the collection and use of personal information of employees, such as their criminal records, credit history, or medical conditions. Therefore, implementing standard background checks for all new employees may violate the laws in some countries and expose the organization to legal risks and reputational damage. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.4: IT Risk Factors, page 31.

According to the CRISC Review Manual, a risk owner is the person who is accountable for the risk and its associated mitigation actions. The risk owner is responsible for monitoring the risk, reporting the risk status, and implementing the risk response. Therefore, the most appropriate risk owner would be the individual who is accountable for loss if the risk materializes, as it implies that they have the authority and the incentive to manage the risk effectively. The other options are not the most appropriate risk owners, as they are not directly accountable for the risk or its consequences. The person who is in charge of information security is responsible for overseeing the IT security function and ensuring that the IT security policy is enforced, but they may not have the authority or the resources to manage the risk. The person who is responsible for enterprise risk management (ERM) is responsible for establishing and maintaining the ERM framework and processes, but they may not have the knowledge or the involvement to manage the risk. The person who can implement remediation action plans is responsible for executing the risk response, but they may not have the decision-making power or the accountability to manage the risk. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2, page 108.

The principle of least privilege is a key concept in information security that aims to provide users with the minimum level of access-or permissions-necessary to perform their job functions. By ensuring that users only have the access they need, organizations can significantly reduce the risk associated with excessive access by authorized users.
Understanding Least Privilege
The principle of least privilege restricts access rights for users to the bare minimum permissions they need to perform their work. This minimizes the potential damage from accidents or malicious activities.
Least privilege should be applied to all user accounts, including administrative and service accounts.
Implementation
Implementing least privilege involves a detailed analysis of job functions and the necessary access required for each role.
Regularly review and update access permissions to ensure they remain aligned with current job responsibilities and organizational needs.
Mitigating Risk
By limiting access to only what is necessary, organizations can prevent users from having permissions that could be exploited, intentionally or unintentionally, to cause harm.
This also includes revoking unnecessary privileges when users change roles or no longer need access.
Comparison with Other Options
A: Monitoring user activity using security logs: While monitoring can detect inappropriate activity, it does not prevent it.
B: Revoking access for users changing roles: This is a necessary practice but does not address the initial allocation of excessive privileges.
D: Conducting periodic reviews of authorizations granted: Periodic reviews are important but are reactive rather than proactive.
References
Sybex-CISSP-Official-Study-Guide-9-Edition.pdf, p. 641, discussing the principle of least privilege and its implementation.