Explanation:
A third-party audit is an independent assessment of an organisation's management system by an external auditor, who is not affiliated with the organisation or its customers. The auditor verifies that the management system meets the requirements of a specific standard, such as ISO 27001, and evaluates its effectiveness and performance. The auditor also identifies any strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or risks of the management system, and provides recommendations for improvement. The purpose of a third-party audit is to provide an objective and impartial evaluation of the organisation's management system, and to inform a certification decision by a certification body. A certification body is an organisation that grants a certificate of conformity to the organisation, after reviewing the audit report and evidence, and confirming that the management system meets the certification criteria. A certification decision is the outcome of the certification process, which can be positive (granting, maintaining, renewing, or expanding the scope of certification) or negative (suspending, withdrawing, or reducing the scope of certification). References:
* PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 19-25
* ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems
* The ISO 27001 audit process | ISMS.online

A third-party virtual audit is an external audit conducted by an independent certification body using remote technology such as video conferencing, screen sharing, and electronic document exchange. The purpose of a third-party virtual audit is to verify the conformity and effectiveness of the information security management system (ISMS) and to issue a certificate of compliance12 Before you start conducting the audit, you would need to inform the auditee about the following issues: 12
* You will ask those being interviewed to state their name and position beforehand, i.e., to confirm their identity and role in the ISMS. This is to ensure that you are interviewing the relevant personnel and that they are authorized to provide information and evidence for the audit.
* You will ask for a 360-degree view of the room where the audit is being carried out, i.e., to verify the physical and environmental security of the audit location. This is to ensure that there are no unauthorized persons or devices in the vicinity that could compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the information being audited.
The other issues are not relevant or appropriate for a third-party virtual audit, because:
* You will ask to see the ID card of the person that is on the screen, i.e., to verify their identity. This is not necessary if you have already asked them to state their name and position beforehand, and if you have access to the auditee's organizational chart or staff directory. Asking to see the ID card could also be seen as intrusive or disrespectful by the auditee.
* You will take photos of every person you interview, i.e., to document the audit process. This is not advisable as it could violate the privacy or consent of the auditee and the interviewees. Taking photos could also be seen as unprofessional or suspicious by the auditee. You should rely on the audit records and evidence provided by the auditee and the audit tool instead.
* You will not record any part of the audit, unless permitted, i.e., to respect the auditee's preferences and rights. This is not a valid issue to inform the auditee about, as you should always record the audit for quality assurance and verification purposes. Recording the audit is also a requirement of the ISO/IEC
27001 standard and the certification body. You should inform the auditee that you will record the audit and obtain their consent before the audit begins.
* You expect the auditee to have assessed all risks associated with online activities, i.e., to ensure the security of the audit process. This is not an issue to inform the auditee about, as it is part of the auditee's responsibility and obligation to have a risk assessment and treatment process for their ISMS. You should assess the auditee's risk management practices and controls during the audit, not before it.
References:
1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

Explanation
An employee caught with offense of abusing the internet, such as P2P file sharing or video/audio streaming, will not receive a warning for committing such act but will directly receive an IR, because this is a violation of the organization's information security policy and acceptable use policy. An IR (incident report) is a formal document that records the details of an information security incident and the actions taken to resolve it. An IR may also trigger disciplinary actions against the employee, depending on the severity and impact of the incident. References: [CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course], [ISO/IEC
27001:2022 Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements], Example of an information security policy, Example of an acceptable use policy

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), control A.7.2 requires an organization to implement appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas1. The organization should define and document the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, and should monitor and record the use of such access rights1. Therefore, when auditing the organization's application of control A.7.2, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.
Based on the scenario above, the auditor should raise a nonconformity against control A.7.2, as the secure area is not adequately protected from unauthorized access. The auditor should provide the following evidence and justification for the nonconformity:
Evidence: The auditor observed two external contractors using a swipe card and combination number provided by the centre's reception desk to gain access to a client's suite to carry out authorized electrical repairs. The auditor checked the door access record for the client's suite and found that only one card was swiped. The auditor asked the receptionist and was told that it was a common problem that contractors tend to swipe one card and tailgate their way in, but they were known from the reception sign-in.
Justification: This evidence indicates that the organization has not implemented appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas, as required by control A.7.2. The organization has not defined and documented the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, as there is no verification or authorization process for providing swipe cards and combination numbers to external contractors. The organization has not monitored and recorded the use of access rights to secure areas, as there is no mechanism to ensure that each individual swipes their card and enters their combination number before entering a secure area. The organization has relied on the reception sign-in as a means of identification, which is not sufficient or reliable for ensuring information security.
The other options are not valid actions for auditing control A.7.2, as they are not related to the control or its requirements, or they are not appropriate or effective for addressing the nonconformity. For example:
Take no action: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor ignores or accepts the nonconformity, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.
Raise a nonconformity against control A.5.20 'addressing information security in supplier relationships' as information security requirements have not been agreed upon with the supplier: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not supplier relationships. Control A.5.20 requires an organization to agree on information security requirements with suppliers that may access, process, store, communicate or provide IT infrastructure components for its information assets1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security in supplier relationships, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.
Raise a nonconformity against control A.7.6 'working in secure areas' as security measures for working in secure areas have not been defined: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not working in secure areas. Control A.7.6 requires an organization to define and apply security measures for working in secure areas1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security when working in secure areas, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.
Determine whether any additional effective arrangements are in place to verify individual access to secure areas e.g. CCTV: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather attempts to find alternative or compensating controls that may mitigate its impact or likelihood. While additional arrangements such as CCTV may be useful for verifying individual access to secure areas, they do not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
Raise an opportunity for improvement that contractors must be accompanied at all times when accessing secure facilities: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may prevent or reduce its recurrence or severity. While accompanying contractors at all times when accessing secure facilities may be a good practice for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
Raise an opportunity for improvement to have a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may increase awareness or compliance with the existing controls. While having a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times may be a helpful reminder for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
Tell the organisation they must write to their contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather instructs the organization to take a corrective action that may not be effective or sufficient for ensuring information security. While writing to contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately may be a communication measure for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.

Explanation
A third-party audit is an independent assessment of an organisation's management system by an external auditor, who is not affiliated with the organisation or its customers. The auditor verifies that the management system meets the requirements of a specific standard, such as ISO 27001, and evaluates its effectiveness and performance. The auditor also identifies any strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or risks of the management system, and provides recommendations for improvement. The purpose of a third-party audit is to provide an objective and impartial evaluation of the organisation's management system, and to inform a certification decision by a certification body. A certification body is an organisation that grants a certificate of conformity to the organisation, after reviewing the audit report and evidence, and confirming that the management system meets the certification criteria. A certification decision is the outcome of the certification process, which can be positive (granting, maintaining, renewing, or expanding the scope of certification) or negative (suspending, withdrawing, or reducing the scope of certification). References:
* PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 19-25
* ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems
* The ISO 27001 audit process | ISMS.online