An anti-virus program is a software that detects and removes malicious software, such as viruses, worms, or ransomware, from the IT assets, such as computers, servers, or networks. The effectiveness of an anti-virus program can be measured by the key performance indicators (KPIs) that reflect the achievement of the program objectives and the alignment with the enterprise's risk appetite and tolerance. The best KPI to measure the effectiveness of an anti-virus program is the percentage of IT assets with current malware definitions. Malware definitions are the files or databases that contain the signatures or patterns of the known malicious software, and they are used by the anti-virus program to scan and identify the malware. The percentage of IT assets with current malware definitions indicates how well the anti-virus program is able to protect the IT assets from the latest or emerging threats, and reduce the exposure and impact of the risks associated with the malware. The other options are not as good as the percentage of IT assets with current malware definitions, as they may not reflect the quality or timeliness of the protection, or the alignment with the enterprise's risk appetite and tolerance. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2.1, pp. 171-172.

The most important reason to revisit a previously accepted risk is to ensure that the risk levels have not changed. A previously accepted risk is a risk that the organization has decided to tolerate or retain without taking any further action, because the risk is either low or unavoidable, or the cost or effort of mitigation outweighs the potential benefit. However, risk acceptance is not a static or permanent decision, as the risk levels may change over time due to various factors, such as new threats, vulnerabilities, impacts, or opportunities. Therefore, it is essential to revisit a previously accepted risk periodically or when there is a significant change in the internal or external environment, to verify that the risk is still within the acceptable range and that the risk acceptance rationale is still valid. If the risk levels have increased or decreased, the organization may need to revise the risk acceptance decision and consider other risk response options, such as avoidance, reduction, sharing, or exploitation. The other options are not the most important reason to revisit a previously accepted risk, although they may be relevant or necessary depending on the context and nature of the risk. Updating risk ownership is a part of the risk governance process, which ensures that the roles and responsibilities for managing the risk are clearly defined and assigned, but it does not affect the risk levels or the risk acceptance decision. Reviewing the risk acceptance with new stakeholders is a part of the risk communication process, which ensures that the risk information and the risk acceptance rationale are shared and understood by the relevant parties, but it does not change the risk levels or the risk acceptance decision.
Ensuring that the controls are still operating effectively is a part of the risk monitoring and review process, which ensures that the risk response actions are implemented and maintained properly, but it does not apply to the accepted risks, as they do not have any additional controls. References = Understanding Accepted Risk - SC Dashboard | Tenable, Risk Acceptance - ENISA, Accepting Risk - Overview, Advantages, Disadvantages, Alternatives

Control testing is the process of verifying that the risk mitigation controls are designed and operating effectively, and that they achieve the intended objectives and outcomes. Control testing can involve various methods, such as observation, inspection, inquiry, re-performance, or simulation. Control testing results can provide evidence and assurance that the implementation of a risk mitigation control has been completed as intended, and that the control is functioning properly and consistently. Control testing results can also identify any issues or deficiencies in the control design or operation, and recommend corrective actions or improvements. The other options are not as helpful as control testing results, because they do not provide a direct and objective verification of the control implementation, but rather focus on other aspects or outputs of the risk management process, as explained below:
A). An updated risk register is a document that records and tracks the identified risks, their characteristics, and their status. An updated risk register can reflect the changes in the risk profile and exposure after the implementation of a risk mitigation control, but it does not verify that the control implementation has been completed as intended, or that the control is effective and reliable.
B). Risk assessment results are the outputs of the risk analysis and evaluation process, which measure the impact and likelihood of the risks, and assign a risk rating and priority. Risk assessment results can indicate the level of risk exposure and the need for risk mitigation controls, but they do not verify that the control implementation has been completed as intended, or that the control is effective and reliable.
C). Technical control validation is the process of ensuring that the technical aspects of a control, such as hardware, software, or network components, are configured and functioning correctly. Technical control validation can verify that the control implementation meets the technical specifications and requirements, but it does not verify that the control implementation has been completed as intended, or that the control is effective and reliable from a businessperspective. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3, page 130.

* Production data is the data that is used in the actual operation of a system or application, such as customer information, financial records, transactions, etc.
* Test data is the data that is used in the testing or development of a system or application, such as dummy data, sample data, simulated data, etc.
* A risk practitioner has become aware of production data being used in a test environment. This indicates that there is a risk of unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction of the production data, which may affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data.
* The primary concern of the risk practitioner in this situation is the sensitivity of the data. This means that the risk practitioner should assess how valuable, critical, or confidential the data is, and what would be the impact or consequence if the data is compromised or lost.
* The sensitivity of the data helps to determine the level of protection and control that is needed to safeguard the data, and the priority and urgency of the risk response actions.
* The other options are not the primary concerns of the risk practitioner in this situation. They are either secondary or not essential for data protection.
The references for this answer are:
* Risk IT Framework, page 32
* Information Technology & Security, page 26
* Risk Scenarios Starter Pack, page 24

The risk practitioner's first course of action when an assessment of information security controls has identified ineffective controls should be A. Determine whether the impact is outside the risk appetite1 According to the CRISC Review Manual, risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite reflects the organization's risk culture, strategy, and values2 When an assessment of information security controls has identified ineffective controls, it means that the controls are not providing the expected level of protection or assurance for the information assets or processes. This may result in increased exposure or vulnerability to threats, or reduced ability to achieve objectives. Therefore, the risk practitioner should first determine whether the impact of the ineffective controls is outside the risk appetite, as this would indicate the need for urgent action or escalation3 The other options are not the first course of action when an assessment of information security controls has identified ineffective controls, because:
*B. Requesting a formal acceptance of risk from senior management may be appropriate if the impact of the ineffective controls is within the risk appetite, and the organization decides to accept the risk as it is.
However, this should not be the first course of action, as it may not address the root cause of the ineffective controls, or the potential consequences or opportunities for improvement4
*C. Reporting the ineffective control for inclusion in the next audit report may be part of the risk communication and reporting process, but it should not be the first course of action, as it may delay the resolution or mitigation of the issue, or the implementation of corrective actions. Moreover, the next audit report may not be timely or relevant for the decision-makers or stakeholders who need to be informed of the ineffective controls5
*D. Deploying a compensating control to address the identified deficiencies may be a possible risk response option, but it should not be the first course of action, as it may require further analysis, evaluation, and approval. Moreover, deploying a compensating control may not be the most effective or efficient solution, as it may introduce additional complexity, cost, or risk.
1: CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, Question ID: 100003 2: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 28 3: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 223 4: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 224 5: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 225 : CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 226