Explanation/Reference:
Explanation:
While customer awareness will help mitigate the risks, this is insufficient on its own to control fraud risk.
Implementing monitoring techniques which will detect and deal with potential fraud cases is the most effective way to deal with this risk. If the bank outsources its processing, the bank still retains liability. While making the customer liable for losses is a possible approach, nevertheless, the bank needs to be seen to be proactive in managing its risks.

Section: INFORMATION RISK MANAGEMENT
Explanations
One approach seeing increasing use is to report and monitor risk through the use of key risk indicators (KRIs). KRIs can be defined as measures that, in some manner, indicate when an enterprise is subject to risk that exceeds a defined risk level. Typically, these indicators are trends in factors known to increase risk and are generally developed based on experience. They can be as diverse as increasing absenteeism or increased turnover in key employees to rising levels of security events or incidents.

= Establishing metrics for each milestone is the best way to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders, as it provides a clear and measurable way to track the progress, performance, and outcomes of the information security governance framework. Metrics are quantifiable indicators that can be used to evaluate the achievement of specific objectives, goals, or standards. Metrics can also help to demonstrate the value, benefits, and return on investment of the information security program, as well as to identify and address the gaps, issues, or risks. Metrics for each milestone should be aligned with the organization's strategy, vision, and mission, as well as with the expectations and needs of the stakeholders. Metrics for each milestone should also be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound), as well as consistent, reliable, and transparent.
The other options are not as important as establishing metrics for each milestone, as they do not provide a comprehensive and holistic way to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders. A control self-assessment (CSA) process is a technique to involve the staff in assessing the design, implementation, and effectiveness of the information security controls. It can help to increase the awareness, ownership, and accountability of the staff, as well as to identify and mitigate the risks. However, a CSA process alone is not enough to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders, as it does not measure the overall performance or maturity of the information security program. Automated reporting to stakeholders is a method to provide timely, accurate, and consistent information to the stakeholders about the status, results, and issues of the information security program. It can help to facilitate the communication, collaboration, and decision making among the stakeholders, as well as to ensure the compliance and transparency of the information security program. However, automated reporting alone is not enough to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders, as it does not evaluate the achievement or impact of the information security program. A monitoring process for the security policy is a process to ensure that the security policy is implemented, enforced, and reviewed in accordance with the organization's objectives, standards, and regulations. It can help to maintain the relevance, adequacy, and effectiveness of the security policy, as well as to incorporate the feedback, changes, and improvements. However, a monitoring process alone is not enough to communicate the program's effectiveness to stakeholders, as it does not cover the other aspects of the information security program, such as governance, risk management, incident management, or business continuity. Reference = CISM Review Manual, 16th Edition, ISACA, 2022, pp. 211-212, 215-216, 233-234, 237-238.
CISM Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, ISACA, 2022, QID 1018.
CISM domain 1: Information security governance [Updated 2022], Infosec, 1.
Key Performance Indicators for Security Governance, Part 1, ISACA Journal, Volume 6, 2020, 2.

Explanation
A risk analysis should take into account the potential size and likelihood of a loss. It could include comparisons with a group of companies of similar size. It should not assume an equal degree of protection for all assets since assets may have different risk factors. The likelihood of the loss should not receive greater emphasis than the size of the loss; a risk analysis should always address both equally.