Nonrepudiation is the ability to prevent or deny the parties involved in an electronic transaction from disputing or rejecting the validity or authenticity of the transaction. Nonrepudiation ensures that the parties cannot claim that they did not send or receive the transaction, or that the transaction was altered or tampered with.
The tool that helps ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions is digital signatures, which are the electronic equivalents of handwritten signatures that are used to verify the identity and integrity of the sender and the content of the transaction. Digital signatures are generated by applying a cryptographic algorithm to the transaction, using the sender's private key, which is a secret and unique code that only the sender knows and possesses. The digital signature can be verified by the receiver or any third party, using the sender's public key, which is a code that is publicly available and corresponds to the sender's private key. The digital signature can prove that the transaction was sent by the sender, and that the transaction was not altered or tampered with during the transmission.
The other options are not the tools that help ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions, because they do not provide the same level of verification and validation that digital signatures provide, and they may not be sufficient or effective to prevent or deny the parties from disputing or rejecting the transaction.
Encrypted passwords are the passwords that are converted into a secret or unreadable form, using a cryptographic algorithm, to protect them from unauthorized access or disclosure. Encrypted passwords can help to ensure the confidentiality and security of the passwords, but they are not the tools that help ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions, because they do not verify the identity and integrity of the sender and the content of the transaction, and they may not prevent or deny the parties from disputing or rejecting the transaction.
One-time passwords are the passwords that are valid or usable for only one session or transaction, and that are randomly generated or derived from a dynamic factor, such as time, location, or device. One-time passwords can help to enhance the security and authentication of the parties involved in the transaction, but they are not the tools that help ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions, because they do not verify the identity and integrity of the sender and the content of the transaction, and they may not prevent or deny the parties from disputing or rejecting the transaction.
Digital certificates are the electronic documents that contain the information and credentials of the parties involved in the transaction, such as their name, public key, expirationdate, etc., and that are issued and signed by a trusted authority or entity, such as a certificate authority or a digital signature provider. Digital certificates can help to establish and confirm the identity and trustworthiness of the parties involved in the transaction, but they are not the tools that help ensure compliance with a nonrepudiation policy requirement for electronic transactions, because they do not verify the identity and integrity of the sender and the content of the transaction, and they may not prevent or deny the parties from disputing or rejecting the transaction. References = ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-59, 62-63 ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 197 CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

An IT risk and control self-assessment (RCSA) is a process that helps organizations identify and evaluate operational risks and assess the effectiveness of their control measures12. It is a structured approach that involves identifying, assessing, mitigating, and monitoring risks across all levels of an organization12.
A report to senior management is a document that summarizes and communicates the results and findings of the RCSA, and provides recommendations and action plans for improving the risk management and control processes34.
The most important aspect of an IT risk and control self-assessment to include in a report to senior management is an increase in residual risk, which is the risk remaining after risk treatment, and represents the exposure or potential impact of the risk on the organization's objectives56.
An increase in residual risk is the most important aspect because it indicates the level of risk that the organization is willing to accept or tolerate, and the gap between the current and desired risk profile56.
An increase in residual risk is also the most important aspect because it requires the attention and decision of the senior management, who are responsible for defining the organization's risk appetite, strategy, and criteria, and for ensuring that the residual risk is within the acceptable range56.
The other options are not the most important aspects, but rather possible components or outcomes of an IT risk and control self-assessment that may support or complement the report to senior management. For example:
Changes in control design are components of an IT risk and control self-assessment that involve modifying or updating the control measures to address the changes in the risk environment or the organization's objectives56. However, changes in control design are not the most important aspect because they do not measure or reflect the residual risk, which is the ultimate goal of the risk treatment56.
A decrease in the number of key controls is an outcome of an IT risk and control self-assessment that indicates the improvement or optimization of the control processes, and the reduction of the complexity or redundancy of the control measures56. However, a decrease in the number of key controls is not the most important aspect because it does not indicate or imply the residual risk, which may depend on other factors such as the effectiveness or efficiency of the controls56.
Changes in control ownership are components of an IT risk and control self-assessment that involve assigning or reassigning the responsibility and accountability for the control processes to the appropriate individuals or groups within the organization56. However,changes in control ownership are not the most important aspect because they do not affect or determine the residual risk, which is independent of the control owners56. References =
1: Risk and control self-assessment - KPMG Global1
2: Control Self Assessments - PwC2
3: How-To Guide: Implementing Risk Control Self-Assessment Steps4
4: RISK MANAGEMENT SELF-ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE - Smartsheet5
5: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009
6: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

A loss event is an occurrence that results in a negative consequence or damage for an organization, such as a data breach, a cyberattack, or a natural disaster. The impact of a loss event is the extent or magnitude of the harm or loss caused by the event, such as financial losses, reputational damage, operational disruptions, or legal liabilities. A newly enacted information privacy law that significantly increases financial penalties for breaches of personally identifiable information (PII) will most likely increase the impact of a loss event for an organization affected by the new law, because it will increase the potential cost and severity of a data breach involving PII. The other options are not as likely as an increase in loss event impact, because they do not directly result from the new law, but rather depend on other factors, such as the organization's risk management capabilities, as explained below:
* A. Increase in compliance breaches is not a likely outcome, because it assumes that the organization will not comply with the new law, which would expose it to more risks and penalties. A rational organization would try to comply with the new law by implementing appropriate controls and measures to protect PII and prevent data breaches.
* C. Increase in residual risk is not a likely outcome, because it assumes that the organization will not adjust its risk response strategies to account for the new law, which would leave it with more risk exposure than desired. A prudent organization would try to reduce its residual risk by enhancing its risk mitigation controls or transferring its risk to a third party, such as an insurance company.
* D. Increase in customer complaints is not a likely outcome, because it assumes that the organization will experience more data breaches involving PII, which would affect its customer satisfaction and loyalty. A responsible organization would try to avoid data breaches by improving its security posture and practices, and by communicating transparently and effectively with its customers about the new law and its implications. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, page 32.

According to the ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control study guide and handbook, the primary benefit of selecting an appropriate set of key risk indicators (KRIs) is that they provide a warning of emerging high-risk conditions. KRIs are metrics that monitor changes in the level of risk exposure and contribute to the early warning signs that enable organizations to report risks, prevent crises, and mitigate them in time. KRIs help risk managers to identify potential threats, assess their impact and likelihood, and take proactive measures to reduce the risk or seize the opportunity12
1: ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control Study Guide, 4th Edition, page 33 2: ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control Handbook, 1st Edition, page 25

A compensating control is a temporary or alternative control that is implemented when the primary control for mitigating a risk is not feasible or available. A compensating control should provide a similar level of protection and assurance as the primary control, and should be aligned with the risk appetite and tolerance of the organization. The risk practitioner's best course of action when a compensating control needs to be applied is to obtain the risk owner's approval. The risk owner is the person who has the authority and accountability for managing a specific risk, and who is responsible for ensuring that the risk is within the acceptable level. The risk practitioner should consult with the risk owner to explain the situation, proposethe compensating control, and seek their approval before implementing it. This way, the risk practitioner can ensure that the compensating control is appropriate, effective, and acceptable for the risk owner, and that the risk owner is aware of and agrees with the change in the risk treatment. The other options are not the best course of action, as they do not involve the risk owner's approval or input. Recording the risk as accepted in the risk register implies that the risk is not treated or reduced, which may not be the case with a compensating control. Informing senior management may be a good practice, but it does not ensure that the risk owner is involved or agrees with the compensating control. Updating the risk response plan may be a necessary step after implementing the compensating control, but it does not require the risk owner's approval or consultation. References = 5 Key Risk Mitigation Strategies (With Examples), Risk Management 101:
Process, Examples, Strategies