* B. This clause requires the organisation to determine the interested parties that are relevant to the ISMS, and the requirements of these interested parties12. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to identify the stakeholders that have an influence or an
* interest in the information security of the organisation, such as customers, suppliers, regulators, employees, etc. The organisation should also consider the needs and expectations of these interested parties when defining the scope of the ISMS, and ensure that they are met and communicated.
* E. This clause requires the organisation to establish an information security policy that provides the framework for setting the information security objectives and guiding the information security activities13. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to define the direction and principles of the ISMS, and to align them with the strategic goals and context of the organisation. The information security policy should also be consistent with the scope of the ISMS, and should be communicated and understood within the organisation and by relevant interested parties.
* F. This clause requires the organisation to determine the internal and external issues that are relevant to the purpose and the context of the organisation, and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcomes of the ISMS14. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to understand the factors and conditions that influence the information security of the organisation, such as the legal, technological, social, economic, environmental, etc. The organisation should also monitor and review these issues, and consider them when defining the scope of the ISMS.
* H. This clause requires the organisation to determine the boundaries and applicability of the ISMS to establish its scope15. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to describe the information and processes that are included in the ISMS, and to document the scope in a clear and concise manner. The organisation should also consider the issues, requirements, and interfaces identified in clauses 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 when determining the scope of the ISMS, and ensure that the scope is appropriate to the nature and scale of the organisation.
References:
1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 17 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, clause
4.2 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, clause 5.2 4: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, clause 4.1 5: ISO/IEC
27001:2022 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, clause 4.3

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 9.3 requires top management to review the organization's ISMS at planned intervals to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness1. Clause 9.2 requires the organization to conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the ISMS conforms to its own requirements and those of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, and is effectively implemented and maintained1. Therefore, when reviewing the audit process and audit findings as a final check before the external certification body arrives, an internal ISMS auditor should verify that these clauses are met in accordance with the audit criteria.
Six of the following statements would cause concern in respect of conformity to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements:
* The audit programme shows management reviews taking place at irregular intervals during the year:
This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not conducting management reviews at planned intervals, as required by clause 9.3. This may affect the ability of top management to ensure the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the ISMS.
* The audit programme does not take into account the relative importance of information security processes: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not applying a risk-based approach to determine the audit frequency, methods, scope and criteria, as recommended by ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems2. This may affect the ability of the organization to identify and address the most significant risks and opportunities for its ISMS.
* Although the scope for each internal audit has been defined, there are no audit criteria defined for the audits carried out to date: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not establishing audit criteria for each internal audit, as required by clause 9.2. Audit criteria are the set of policies, procedures or requirements used as a reference against which audit evidence is compared2.
Without audit criteria, it is not possible to determine whether the ISMS conforms to its own requirements and those of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.
* Audit reports to date have used key performance indicator information to focus solely on the efficiency of ISMS processes: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not evaluating the effectiveness of ISMS processes, as required by clause 9.1. Effectiveness is the extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results achieved2. Efficiency is the relationship between the result achieved and the resources used2. Both aspects are important for measuring and evaluating ISMS performance and improvement.
* The audit programme does not take into account the results of previous audits: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not using the results of previous audits as an input for planning and conducting subsequent audits, as recommended by ISO 19011:20182. This may affect the ability of the organization to identify and address any recurring or unresolved issues or nonconformities related to its ISMS.
* Top management commitment to the ISMS will not be audited before the certification visit, according to the audit programme: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not verifying that top management demonstrates leadership and commitment with respect to its ISMS, as required by clause 5.1. This may affect the ability of top management to ensure that the ISMS policy and objectives are established and compatible with the strategic direction of the organization; that roles,
* responsibilities and authorities for relevant roles are assigned and communicated; that resources needed for the ISMS are available; that communication about information security matters is established; that continual improvement of the ISMS is promoted; that other relevant management reviews are aligned with those of information security; and that support is provided to other relevant roles1.
The other statements would not cause concern in respect of conformity to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements:
* Audit reports are not held in hardcopy (i.e. on paper). They are only stored as ".POF documents on the organisation's intranet: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific format or media for documenting or storing audit reports, as long as they are controlled according to clause 7.5.
* The audit programme mandates auditors must be independent of the areas they audit in order to satisfy the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for auditor independence, as long as the audit is conducted objectively and impartially, in accordance with ISO 19011:20182.
* The audit programme does not reference audit methods or audit responsibilities: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for referencing audit methods or audit responsibilities in the audit programme, as long as they are defined and documented according to ISO 19011:20182.
* The audit process states the results of audits will be made available to 'relevant' managers, not top management: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for communicating the results of audits to top management, as long as they are reported to the relevant parties and used as an input for management review, according to clause 9.3.
References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

Explanation
The correct options are:
There is a nonconformity (NC). The organisation's access control arrangements are not operating effectively as an individual who is no longer employed by the organisation is being permitted to access the nursing home's ICT systems. This does not conform with control A.5.15. (B): This option is correct because control A.5.15 requires the organization to implement secure log-on procedures and manage user access rights. The organization should ensure that only authorized users can access the ICT systems and that the access rights are revoked or modified when the user status changes. The fact that Scott, who resigned 9 months ago, still has an active account on the SCM and can check out the source code, indicates a failure of the access control arrangements and a nonconformity with the control A.5.15.
There is a nonconformity (NC). The IT Security manager did not make sure the user account for Scott was removed from the SCM and did not complete the user deregistration process after the resignation. This does not conform with clause 9.1 and control A.5.15. : This option is correct because clause 9.1 requires the organization to monitor, measure, analyze, and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the ISMS. The organization should have processes and indicators to verify that the ISMS requirements and objectives are met and that the ISMS is continually improved. The organization should also ensure that the results of the monitoring and measurement are documented and communicated. The fact that the IT Security manager did not follow the user de-registration procedure and did not document or communicate the exception for Scott, indicates a failure of the monitoring and measurement processes and a nonconformity with clause 9.1 and control A.5.15.
There is a nonconformity (NC). The organisation has failed to identify the security risks associated with leaving Scott's account open when he was only re-engaged for a short period monthly. This does not conform with clause 8.2. (F): This option is correct because clause 8.2 requires the organization to establish and maintain an information security risk management process. The organization should identify the information security risks, analyze and evaluate the risks, and treat the risks according to the risk criteria and the risk treatment options. The organization should also monitor and review the risks and the risk treatment plan periodically and document the results. The fact that the organization did not identify the security risks associated with Scott's access to the SCM and the source code, such as unauthorized disclosure, modification, or deletion of the information, indicates a failure of the risk management process and a nonconformity with clause 8.2.

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.6 requires the audit team leader to conduct a closing meeting with the auditee's representatives at the end of the audit to present the audit conclusions and any findings1. The closing meeting should also provide an opportunity for the auditee to ask questions, clarify issues, acknowledge the findings, and comment on the audit process1. Therefore, when preparing for the closing meeting, an ISMS auditor should consider the following actions:
I will advise the auditee that the purpose of the closing meeting is for the audit team to communicate our findings. It is not an opportunity for the auditee to challenge these: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to collecting and evaluating audit evidence and reaching audit conclusions. The auditor should advise the auditee that the purpose of the closing meeting is for the audit team to communicate their findings, which are based on objective evidence and professional judgement. The auditor should also explain that it is not an opportunity for the auditee to challenge these findings, as they have already been discussed and confirmed during the audit. However, the auditor should also invite the auditee to ask questions, clarify issues, acknowledge the findings, and comment on the audit process1.
I will schedule a closing meeting with the auditee's representatives at which the audit conclusions will be presented: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a planned and agreed audit programme and schedule. The auditor should schedule a closing meeting with the auditee's representatives at which the audit conclusions will be presented, in accordance with clause
6.6 of ISO 19011:20181. The auditor should also ensure that the closing meeting is attended by those responsible for managing or implementing the ISMS, as well as any other relevant parties1.
I will discuss any follow-up required with my audit team: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a risk-based approach to determining and reporting any follow-up actions required by the auditee or the certification body. The auditor should discuss any follow-up required with their audit team, such as verifying corrective actions for nonconformities or conducting a subsequent audit1. The auditor should also document any follow-up actions in the audit report1.
I will review and, as appropriate, approve my teams audit conclusions: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a rigorous and professional process to reaching and reporting audit conclusions. The auditor should review and, as appropriate, approve their teams audit conclusions, which are based on objective evidence and professional judgement. The auditor should also ensure that their teams audit conclusions are consistent with the audit objectives and scope, and reflect the overall performance and conformity of the ISMS1.