According to ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, which specifies the requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, clause 9.4.9 requires the certification body to make a certification decision based on the information obtained during the audit and any other relevant information1. The certification body should also consider the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee to address any nonconformities identified during the audit1. Therefore, when making a recommendation to the audit programme manager, an ISMS auditor should consider the nature and severity of the nonconformities and the proposed corrective actions.
Based on the scenario above, the auditor should recommend certification after their approval of the proposed corrective action plan and recommend that the findings can be closed out at a surveillance audit in 1 year. The auditor should provide the following justification for their recommendation:
* Justification: This recommendation is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has only two minor nonconformities and one opportunity for improvement, which do not indicate a significant or systemic failure of their ISMS. A minor nonconformity is defined as a failure to achieve one or more requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or a situation which raises significant doubt about the ability of an ISMS process to achieve its intended output, but does not affect its overall effectiveness or conformity2. An opportunity for improvement is defined as a suggestion for improvement beyond what is required by ISO/IEC 27001:20222. Therefore, these findings do not prevent or preclude certification, as long as they are addressed by appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable time frame. The auditor should approve the proposed corrective action plan before recommending certification, to ensure that it is realistic, achievable, and effective. The auditor should also recommend that the findings can be closed out at a surveillance audit in 1 year, to verify that the corrective actions have been implemented and are working as intended.
The other options are not valid recommendations for the audit programme manager, as they are either too lenient or too strict for the given scenario. For example:
* Recommend certification immediately: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor ignores or accepts the nonconformities, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO
19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to consider the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee before making a certification decision.
* Recommend that a full scope re-audit is required within 6 months: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor overreacts or exaggerates the nonconformities, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC
17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to determine whether a re-audit is necessary based on the nature and extent of nonconformities and other relevant factors. A full scope re-audit is usually reserved for major nonconformities or multiple minor nonconformities that indicate a serious or widespread failure of an ISMS.
* Recommend that an unannounced audit is carried out at a future date: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor distrusts or doubts the auditee's commitment or capability to implement corrective actions, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to conduct unannounced audits only under certain conditions, such as when there are indications of serious problems with an ISMS or when required by sector-specific schemes.
* Recommend that a partial audit is required within 3 months: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor imposes or prescribes a specific time frame or scope for verifying corrective actions, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to determine whether a partial audit is necessary based on the nature and extent of nonconformities and other relevant factors. A partial audit may be appropriate for minor nonconformities, but the time frame and scope should be agreed upon with the auditee and based on the proposed corrective action plan.
References: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 - Conformity assessment - Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems - Part 1: Requirements, ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

Moving to a stand-by arrangement is found between incident and damage in the incident cycle. The incident cycle is a model that describes the phases of an incident from its occurrence to its resolution. The incident cycle consists of four phases: threat, incident, damage, and recovery1. A threat is a potential cause or source of harm to an organization's information assets or systems. An incident is an event that compromises the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information assets or systems. Damage is the negative impact or consequence of an incident on the organization's assets, operations, reputation, or legal obligations. Recovery is the process of restoring normal service and operations after an incident and preventing recurrence2. Moving to a stand-by arrangement is a form of contingency plan that enables the organization to continue its critical activities in an alternative location or mode after an incident. This measure is taken before the damage caused by the incident is fully assessed or contained. Therefore, moving to a stand-by arrangement is found between incident and damage in the incident cycle. Reference: [ISO/IEC 27031:2011], clause 4.2; [ISO/IEC 27035:2016], clause 4.

Explanation
A legal technical expert (LTE) is a person who provides specific knowledge or expertise related to the legal aspects of the information security management system (ISMS) during a certification audit. The LTE is not an auditor, but a member of the audit team who supports the auditors in collecting and evaluating the audit evidence. The LTE is not responsible for evaluating the auditee's legal knowledge, criticising the organisation's legal compliance issues, or debating complex legal points with the auditee, as these tasks may be beyond the scope of the audit, or may compromise the objectivity and impartiality of the audit. The LTE is responsible for advising on legal checkpoints for the audit team, such as the applicable legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements, the relevant sources of information, the methods of verification, and the criteria of evaluation. The LTE is also responsible for verifying the legal status of the organisation, such as the registration, licensing, authorisation, or accreditation of the organisation, and the compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. References:
What is the role of a technical expert in ISO audit?
Roles, Responsibilities & Authorities for ISO 27001 5.3
Guide to Become an ISO 27001 Lead Auditor

Explanation
Integrity of data means accuracy and completeness of the data. Integrity is one of the three main objectives of information security, along with confidentiality and availability. Integrity ensures that information and systems are not corrupted, modified, or deleted by unauthorized actions or events. Data should be viewable at all times is not related to integrity, but to availability. Data should be accessed by only the right people is not related to integrity, but to confidentiality. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 24. : [ISO/IEC 27001 Brochures | PECB], page 4.

Explanation
According to ISO/IEC 27000:2018, which provides an overview and vocabulary of information security management systems, an information security event is an identified occurrence of a system, service or network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, or a previously unknown situation that may be security relevant1. An information security incident is a single or a series of unwanted or unexpected information security events that have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security1. Therefore, based on this definition, three examples of information security incidents are:
* A contractor who has not been paid deletes top management ICT accounts: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of access, data, or functionality for the top management.
* An unhappy employee changes payroll records without permission: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in financial fraud, legal liability, or reputational damage for the organization.
* The organisation's marketing data is copied by hackers and sold to a competitor: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of confidentiality, competitive advantage, or customer trust for the organization.
The other options are not examples of information security incidents, but rather information security events that may or may not lead to incidents depending on their impact and severity. For example:
* The organisation's malware protection software prevents a virus: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it is prevented by the malware protection software.
* A hard drive is used after its recommended replacement date: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it fails or causes other problems.
* The organisation receives a phishing email: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it is opened or responded to by the recipient.
* An employee fails to clear their desk at the end of their shift: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a service state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of
* safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the desk contains sensitive or confidential information that is accessed by unauthorized persons.
* The organisation fails a third-party penetration test: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the penetration test reveals serious vulnerabilities that are exploited by malicious actors.
References: ISO/IEC 27000:2018 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Overview and vocabulary