The risk manager's best course of action when discovering significant vulnerabilities in a commercial off-the-shelf software product is to review the risk of implementing versus postponing with stakeholders. This means that the risk manager should assess the potential impact and likelihood of the vulnerabilities being exploited, as well as the benefits and costs of using the software product. The risk manager should also consult with the relevant stakeholders, such as the business owners, the IT department, the security team, and the vendor, to understand their perspectives, expectations, and requirements. Based on this analysis, the risk manager should decide whether to proceed with the implementation, delay it until the next release, or look for alternative solutions. The risk manager should also document and communicate the decision and the rationale behind it, and monitor the situation for any changes or new developments.
The other options are not the best course of action, because:
* Running vulnerability testing tools to independently verify the vulnerabilities is a useful step to confirm the existence and severity of the vulnerabilities, but it is not sufficient to address the risk. The risk manager still needs to evaluate the trade-offs between implementing and postponing the software product, and involve the stakeholders in the decision-making process.
* Reviewing the software license to determine the vendor's responsibility regarding vulnerabilities is an important step to understand the contractual obligations and liabilities of the vendor, but it is not enough to mitigate the risk. The risk manager still needs to consider the impact and likelihood of the vulnerabilities, and the benefits and costs of the software product, and consult with the stakeholders to decide the best course of action.
* Requiring the vendor to correct significant vulnerabilities prior to installation is an unrealistic and impractical option, as the vendor has already stated that the vulnerabilities will not be corrected until the next release. The risk manager cannot force the vendor to change their schedule or priorities, and may risk damaging the relationship with the vendor. The risk manager should instead work with the vendor to understand the nature and scope of the vulnerabilities, and the expected timeline and features of the next release, and use this information to inform the risk assessment and decision-making process.

A risk heat map is a graphical tool that displays the results of a risk analysis in a matrix format, using colors and symbols to indicate the level and priority of the risks. A risk heat map can show the distribution and comparison of the risks based on various criteria, such as likelihood, impact, category, source, etc.
A risk heat map is most commonly used as part of an IT risk analysis to facilitate risk assessment, which is the process of determining the significance and urgency of the risks that may affect the organization's objectives and operations. Risk assessment involves measuring and comparing the likelihood and impact of various risk scenarios, and prioritizing them based on their magnitude and importance.
A risk heat map can help to facilitate risk assessment by providing a visual and intuitive representation of the risk profile, and highlighting the most critical and relevant risks that need to be addressed or monitored. A risk heat map can also help to communicate and report the riskanalysis results to different stakeholders, and to support the decision making and planning for the risk response and treatment.
The other options are not the most common uses of a risk heat map as part of an IT risk analysis, because they do not address the main purpose and benefit of a risk heat map, which is to facilitate risk assessment.
Risk identification is the process of finding and describing the risks that may affect the organization's objectives and operations. Risk identification involves defining the risk sources, events, causes, and impacts, and documenting them in a risk register. A risk heat map is not commonly used to facilitate risk identification, because it does not provide the detailed and comprehensive information that is needed to identify and describe the risks, and it may not cover all the relevant or potential risks that may exist or emerge.
Risk treatment is the process of selecting and implementing the appropriate actions or plans to address the risks that have been identified, analyzed, and evaluated. Risk treatment involves choosing one of the following types of risk responses: mitigate, transfer, avoid, or accept. A risk heat map is not commonly used to facilitate risk treatment, because it does not provide the specific and feasible information that is needed to select and implement the risk responses, and it may not reflect the cost-benefit or feasibility analysis of the risk responses.
Risk communication is the process of exchanging and sharing the information and knowledge about the risks and their responses among the relevant stakeholders. Risk communication involves informing, consulting, and involving the stakeholders in the risk management process, and ensuring that they understand and agree on the risk objectives, criteria, and outcomes. A risk heat map is not commonly used to facilitate risk communication, because it does not provide the complete and accurate information that is needed to communicate and share the risks and their responses, and it may not address the different needs, expectations, and perspectives of the stakeholders. References = ISACA, CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2022, pp. 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 31-32, 40-41, 47-48, 54-55, 58-
59, 62-63
ISACA, CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, 2022, QID 169 CRISC Practice Quiz and Exam Prep

According to the CRISC Review Manual1, authorizing user access requests is the process of granting or denying access to IT resources based on the user's role, responsibilities, and business needs. Authorizing user access requests is a key control accountability that should be retained within the organization, as it helps to ensure that the principle of least privilege is applied, and that the access rights are aligned with the organization's policies, standards, and risk appetite. Authorizing user access requests also helps to prevent unauthorized access, data leakage, fraud, and other potential risks associated with user access provisioning and termination. Therefore, the best control accountability to retain within the organizationwhen a third-party vendor offers to perform user access provisioning and termination is authorizing user access requests. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 240.

Documented procedures are the best way to enable effective IT control implementation. Documented procedures are the specific actions or steps that are performed to achieve the IT control objectives and mitigate the IT risks. Documented procedures provide clear guidance, consistency, and accountability for the IT control activities. Documented procedures also help to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the IT controls, and to identify and address any gaps or weaknesses. The other options are not as effective as documented procedures, although they may support or complement the IT control implementation. Key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics that measure the likelihood and impact of IT risks, but they do not specify how to implement the IT controls. Information security policies and standards are high-level statements that define the IT security goals and requirements, but they do not detail how to implement the IT controls. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.3.2, page 1-15.

Senior management participation is essential for the success of an organization's risk management framework, as it demonstrates the commitment, support, and leadership for the risk management activities.
Senior management participation also ensures that the risk management framework is aligned with the organization's strategy, objectives, and culture, and that the risk management roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and communicated. Senior management participation also facilitates the allocation of adequate resources, the establishment of risk appetite and tolerance, and the monitoring and reporting of risk performance. Therefore, the lack of senior management participation should be of greatest concern to a risk practitioner, as it indicates a low level of risk maturity and a high level of risk exposure. The other options are not as concerning as the lack of senior management participation, because they do not affect the risk management framework as significantly, and they can be addressed or improved with the involvement of senior management, as explained below:
A: Unclear organizational risk appetite is a deficiency that can affect the risk management framework, as it can lead to inconsistent or inappropriate risk decisions and responses. However, this deficiency can be resolved or mitigated with the participation of senior management, whocan define and communicate the risk appetite and tolerance for the organization, and ensure that they are aligned with the organization's strategy and objectives.
C: Use of highly customized control frameworks is a deficiency that can affect the risk management framework, as it can create complexity, confusion, or duplication in the control design and implementation.
However, this deficiency can be resolved or mitigated with the participation of senior management, who can review and rationalize the control frameworks, and ensure that they are relevant, effective, and efficient for the organization's risk profile and environment.
D: Reliance on qualitative analysis methods is a deficiency that can affect the risk management framework, as it can limit the accuracy, reliability, and comparability of the risk information and assessment. However, this deficiency can be resolved or mitigated with the participation of senior management, who can support and promote the use of quantitative analysis methods, such as the FAIR framework1, and provide the necessary data, tools, and skills for the risk analysis and evaluation. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.3.2, page 18.