Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a framework that describes the key elements of an effective software process. It defines five levels of maturity for software development organizations, from initial to optimized. The CMM helps organizations to assess their current level of process capability and identify the areas for improvement1. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor - IECB

The role and responsibility that system users should not observe in the event of an information security incident is D: make the information security incident details known to all employees. This is not a proper role or responsibility for system users, as it could cause unnecessary panic, confusion or speculation among employees who are not involved in the incident response process. It could also compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the incident information, which could be sensitive or confidential in nature. Making the information security incident details known to all employees could also violate the information security policies and procedures of the organization, which may require a certain level of discretion and confidentiality when dealing with incidents. The other roles and responsibilities are correct, as they describe what system users should do in the event of an information security incident, such as reporting the incident to the Servicedesk (A), preserving evidence if necessary (B), and cooperating with investigative personnel if needed . These roles and responsibilities help to ensure a quick, effective and orderly response to information security incidents. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organization to implement procedures for reporting and managing information security incidents (see clause A.16.1). Reference: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, What is Information Security Incident Management?

Detection risk refers to the risk that the auditor will not detect a material misstatement or significant issue within the organization's ISMS. In this case, the auditor's inability to identify Company A's insecure network architecture is a detection risk.

The correct options for how the auditor should respond are:
* A. Advise the MSR that an extension of the scope may be incorporated but will have to go through established procedures
* D. Determine whether the Management System covers the processes at the new site and, if so, proceed with the audit These options are consistent with the ISO/IEC 27006:2015 standard, which states that any changes to the scope of certification should be notified by the client to the certification body, and that the certification body should evaluate and decide on these changes in accordance with its procedures1. The auditor should also verify that the ISMS is implemented and maintained at all sites included in the scope of certification1.
The other options are not appropriate for how the auditor should respond, because:
* B. Advise the MSR that the audit scope has been determined based on their initial application so the audit has to proceed as planned: This option is too rigid and does not allow for any flexibility or adaptation to the client's situation. The auditor should be open to consider any changes to the scope of certification that may have occurred since the initial application, as long as they are properly notified and evaluated by the certification body.
* C. Suggest that the MSR cancels the audit contract and reapplies for the new situation: This option is too drastic and unnecessary, as it would cause delays and costs for both the client and the certification body. The auditor should not suggest that the client cancels the audit contract, but rather that they follow the established procedures for requesting and approving an extension of the scope of certification.
* E. Advise the MSR that, within the existing scope, the new work area can be included without any problem: This option is too lenient and does not ensure that the new work area meets the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 and the ISMS. The auditor should not assume that the new work area can be included within the existing scope without any problem, but rather that they need to verify that the ISMS is implemented and maintained at the new site, and that any changes to the scope of certification are approved by the certification body.
* F. Confirm that the auditor will advise the auditee that the audit scope will be revised to include the new work area: This option is too presumptuous and does not respect the authority of the certification body.
The auditor should not confirm that they will revise the audit scope to include the new work area, but rather that they will advise the certification body of the client's request for an extension of the scope of certification, and wait for their decision.