CCAK Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge Questions and Answers

The most important audit scope document when conducting a review of a cloud service provider is the document that defines the processes and systems to be audited. This document should clearly identify the objectives, criteria, and boundaries of the audit, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the audit team and the cloud service provider. The document should also specify the scope of the cloud service provider’s services, such as the service model, deployment model, geographic location, data classification, and compliance requirements. The document should also describe the scope of the audit evidence, such as the types, sources, methods, and sampling techniques of data collection and analysis. The document should also state the expected deliverables, timelines, and reporting formats of the audit. The document should be agreed upon by both parties before the audit commences.

The document that defines the processes and systems to be audited is essential for ensuring that the audit is relevant, reliable, consistent, and complete. It helps to establish a common understanding and expectation between the auditor and the auditee, as well as to avoid any misunderstandings or conflicts during or after the audit. It also helps to focus the audit on the key risks and controls related to the cloud service provider’s operations and performance. It also helps to ensure that the audit complies with the applicable standards, frameworks, and regulations.

References:

Cloud Audits and Compliance: What You Need To Know - Linford & Company LLP

How to audit the cloud | ICAEW

Auditing Cloud Computing: A Security and Privacy Guide

The auditor’s next course of action should be to review the contract and DR capability of the cloud service provider. This will help the auditor to verify if the provider has a DR plan that meets the organization’s requirements and expectations, and if the provider has evidence of testing and validating the plan annually. The auditor should also check if the contract specifies the roles and responsibilities of both parties, the RTO and RPO values, the SLA terms, and the penalties for non-compliance.

Reviewing the security white paper of the provider (option A) might give some information about the provider’s security practices and controls, but it might not be sufficient or relevant to assess the DR plan. Reviewing the provider’s audit reports (option B) might also provide some assurance about the provider’s compliance with standards and regulations, but it might not address the specific DR needs of the organization. Planning an audit of the provider (option D) might be a possible course of action, but it would require more time and resources, and it might not be feasible or necessary if the contract and DR capability are already satisfactory. References:

Disaster recovery planning guide

Audit a Disaster Recovery Plan

How to Maintain and Test a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan

 The three layers of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) primarily help cloud service providers and cloud clients improve the level of transparency and assurance. The OCF is designed to provide a trusted and independent evaluation of cloud providers through a flexible, incremental, and multi-layered certification process. This framework enhances transparency by making it easier for consumers to understand and compare providers’ security and compliance capabilities. Additionally, it offers assurance by integrating with third-party assessment and attestation statements, thereby increasing the security baseline for all participants.

References = The benefits of the OCF in improving transparency and assurance are detailed in the Cloud Security Alliance’s documentation on the Open Certification Framework1.

The most useful document for an auditor to review when seeking visibility into the cloud supply chain for a newly acquired Software as a Service (SaaS) solution is the SaaS provider contract. The contract is the legal agreement that defines the terms and conditions of the cloud service, including the roles, responsibilities, and obligations of the parties involved1. The contract should also specify the service level agreements (SLAs), security and privacy requirements, data ownership and governance, incident response and reporting, audit rights and access, and subcontracting or outsourcing arrangements of the SaaS provider2. By reviewing the contract, the auditor can gain insight into the cloud supply chain and assess the risks, controls, and compliance of the SaaS solution.

The other options are not as useful as the SaaS provider contract. Payments made by the service owner are the financial transactions that reflect the fees or charges incurred by using the SaaS solution. They may indicate the usage or consumption of the cloud service, but they do not provide much information about the cloud supply chain or its security and compliance aspects3. SaaS vendor white papers are the marketing or educational materials that describe the features, benefits, or best practices of the SaaS solution. They may provide some general or technical information about the cloud service, but they are not legally binding or verifiable4. Cloud compliance obligations register is a tool that helps customers identify and track their compliance requirements and obligations for using cloud services. It may help customers understand their own responsibilities and risks in relation to the cloud service, but it does not necessarily reflect the compliance status or performance of the SaaS provider5.

References:

Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist | Trust Center1, section on How to use the checklist

Cloud Computing Security Considerations | Cyber.gov.au2, section on Contractual arrangements

Cloud Computing Pricing Models: A Comparison - DZone Cloud3, section on Pricing Models

What is a White Paper? Definition from WhatIs.com4, section on White Paper

Cloud Compliance Obligations Register | Cyber.gov.au5, section on Cloud Compliance Obligations Register

In a multi-level supply chain structure where cloud service provider A relies on other sub cloud service providers, the provider should ensure that any compliance requirements relevant to the provider are passed to the sub cloud service providers. This is because the sub cloud service providers may have access to or process the provider’s data or resources, and therefore need to comply with the same standards and regulations as the provider. Passing the compliance requirements to the sub cloud service providers can also help the provider to monitor and audit the sub cloud service providers’ performance and security, and to mitigate any risks or issues that may arise.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 85-86.

CSA, Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, p. 7-8

 Termination for convenience is a contractual provision that allows one party to unilaterally terminate the contract without the fault of the other party. This type of termination does not require the terminating party to prove that the other party has failed to meet their obligations or is at fault in any way. Instead, it is often used to end a contract when it is no longer in the best interest of the terminating party to continue, for reasons that may include changes in business strategy, financial considerations, or other external factors.

References = The concept of termination for convenience is commonly found in various contractual agreements and is a standard clause in government contracts, allowing the government to terminate a contract when it is deemed to be in the public interest. While the search did not yield specific CCAK documents detailing this type of termination, it is a well-established principle in contract law and is likely covered under the broader topic of contract management within the CCAK curriculum.

The Egregious 11 refers to a list of top threats to cloud computing, as published by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) in 2019. The CSA is a leading organization dedicated to defining standards, certifications and best practices to help ensure a secure cloud computing environment. The Egregious 11 report ranks the most critical and pressing cloud security issues, such as data breaches, misconfigurations, insufficient identity and access management, and account hijacking. The report also provides recommendations for security, compliance, risk and technology practitioners to mitigate these threats. The Egregious 11 is based on a survey of industry experts and a review of current literature and media reports. The report is intended to raise awareness of the risks and challenges associated with cloud computing and promote strong security practices.12 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Auditing, page 961; CSA Top Threats to Cloud Computing: Egregious 11

The Cloud Octagon Model was developed to support organizations’ risk assessment methodology. Risk assessment is the process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks associated with a cloud computing environment. The Cloud Octagon Model provides a logical approach to holistically deal with security aspects involved in moving to the cloud by introducing eight dimensions that need to be considered: procurement, IT governance, architecture, development and engineering, service providers, risk processes, data classification, and country. The model aims to reduce risks, improve effectiveness, manageability, and security of cloud solutions12.

References:

Cloud Octagon Model | CSA

Cloud Security Alliance Releases Cloud Octagon Model

Customer management interfaces are the web portals or applications that allow customers to access and manage their cloud services, such as provisioning, monitoring, billing, etc. These interfaces are exposed to the public Internet and may be vulnerable to attacks such as phishing, malware, denial-of-service, or credential theft. If an attacker compromises a customer management interface, they can potentially access and manipulate the customer’s cloud resources, data, and configurations, leading to computing and data compromise for customers. This can result in data breaches, service disruptions, unauthorized transactions, or other malicious activities.

References:

Cloud Computing - Security Benefits and Risks | PPT - SlideShare1, slide 10

Cloud Security Risks: The Top 8 According To ENISA - CloudTweaks2, section on Management Interface Compromise

Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, section 2.3.2.1 : https://www.isaca.org/-/media/info/ccak/ccak-study-guide.pdf

Supply chain agreements between a cloud service provider and cloud customers should, at a minimum, include audits, assessments, and independent verification of compliance certifications with agreement terms. This is because cloud customers need to ensure that the cloud service provider meets the agreed-upon service levels, security standards, and regulatory requirements. Audits, assessments, and independent verification can provide evidence of the cloud service provider’s compliance and performance and help identify any gaps or risks that need to be addressed. This is also stated in the Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.012, which is a reference document for cloud customers and providers to analyze and negotiate cloud service agreements.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option A, regulatory guidelines impacting the cloud customer, refers to the legal and ethical obligations that the cloud customer has to comply with when using cloud services, such as data protection, privacy, and security laws. These guidelines may vary depending on the jurisdiction, industry, and type of data involved. Option C, policies and procedures of the cloud customer, refers to the internal rules and processes that the cloud customer has to follow when using cloud services, such as data governance, access management, and incident response. Option D, the organizational chart of the provider, refers to the structure and hierarchy of the cloud service provider’s organization, such as the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of its employees, departments, and units.

References :=

Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.01

Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements V2.0| Object … - OMG3

Supply chain agreements between CSP and cloud customers should …4

Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 3

According to the ISACA CCAK Study Guide, the auditor should report the findings to the management of the organization being audited, as they are the primary stakeholders and decision makers for the cloud service. The management is responsible for ensuring that the cloud service meets the requirements and expectations of the community, as well as complying with any relevant laws and regulations. The auditor should also communicate the findings to the cloud service provider, as they are the secondary stakeholders and service providers for the cloud service. The cloud service provider should be aware of any issues or gaps identified by the auditor and work with the management to resolve them. The auditor should not report the findings to the public, shareholders, or interested parties, as they are not directly involved in the cloud service or its governance. The auditor should respect the confidentiality and privacy of the community and its data, and only disclose the findings to those who have a legitimate need to know. References :=

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 971

ISACA, Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam, 2021, p. 36

From a compliance perspective, reviewing logs is crucial when evaluating the effectiveness of Infrastructure as Code (IaC) deployments. Logs provide a detailed record of events, changes, and operations that have occurred within the IaC environment. They are essential for tracking the deployment process, identifying issues, and verifying that the infrastructure has been configured and is operating as intended. Logs can also be used to ensure that the IaC deployments comply with security policies and regulatory requirements, making them a vital artifact for assessors.

References = The importance of logs in assessing IaC deployments is supported by cybersecurity best practices, which recommend the use of logs for auditable records of changes to template files and for tracking resource protection1. Additionally, ISACA’s resources on securing IaC highlight the role of logs in providing transparency and enabling infrastructure blueprints to be audited and reviewed for common errors or misconfigurations2.

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the final decision to include a material finding in a cloud audit report should be made by the cloud auditor1. A material finding is a significant error or risk in the cloud service that could affect the achievement of the audit objectives or the cloud customer’s business outcomes. The cloud auditor is responsible for identifying, evaluating, and reporting the material findings based on the audit criteria, methodology, and evidence. The cloud auditor should also communicate the material findings to the auditee and other relevant stakeholders, and obtain their feedback and responses.

The other options are not correct. Option A is incorrect, as the auditee’s senior management is not in charge of the audit report, but rather the subject of the audit. The auditee’s senior management should provide their perspective and action plans for the material findings, but they cannot decide whether to include or exclude them from the report. Option B is incorrect, as the organization’s CEO is not involved in the audit process, but rather the ultimate recipient of the audit report. The organization’s CEO should review and act upon the audit report, but they cannot influence the content of the report. Option D is incorrect, as the organization’s CISO is not an independent party, but rather a stakeholder of the audit. The organization’s CISO should support and collaborate with the cloud auditor, but they cannot make the final decision on the material findings. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 19-20.

 A dot release of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) indicates a technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is smaller than 10% compared to the previous full release. A dot release is a minor update to the CCM that reflects the feedback from the cloud security community and the changes in the cloud technology landscape. A dot release does not change the domain structure or the overall scope of the CCM, but rather improves the clarity, accuracy, and relevance of the existing controls. A dot release is denoted by a decimal number after the major version number, such as CCM v4.1 or CCM v4.2. The current version of the CCM is v4.0, which was released in October 20211.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. a revision of the CCM domain structure: A revision of the CCM domain structure is a major change that affects the organization and categorization of the controls into different domains. A revision of the CCM domain structure requires a full release, not a dot release, and is denoted by an integer number, such as CCM v3 or CCM v42.

C. the introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls: The introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls is an additional feature that enhances the usability and applicability of the CCM. The introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls does not require a dot release or a full release, but rather an update to the mapping table that shows the relationship between the CCM controls and other industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks3.

D. technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release: A technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release is a significant change that affects the content and scope of the CCM. A technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release requires a full release, not a dot release, and is denoted by an integer number, such as CCM v3 or CCM v42.

References:

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

The CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) V4: Raising the cloud security bar

Cloud Security Alliance Releases New Cloud Controls Matrix Auditing Guidelines

 Supply chain agreements between a cloud service provider and cloud customers should, at a minimum, include audits, assessments, and independent verification of compliance certifications with agreement terms. This is because cloud services involve multiple parties in the supply chain, such as cloud providers, sub-providers, brokers, carriers, and auditors. Each party may have different roles and responsibilities in delivering the cloud services and ensuring their quality, security, and compliance. Therefore, it is important for the cloud customers to have visibility and assurance of the performance and compliance of the cloud providers and their sub-providers. Audits, assessments, and independent verification of compliance certifications are methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls and processes implemented by the cloud providers and their sub-providers to meet the agreement terms. These methods can help the cloud customers to identify any gaps or risks in the supply chain and to take corrective actions if needed. This is part of the Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) domain COM-04: Audit Assurance & Compliance, which states that "The organization should have a policy and procedures to conduct audits and assessments of cloud services and data to verify compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks, contractual obligations, and industry standards."12 References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 3: Cloud Compliance Program, page 551; Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.02

 When an organization is moving to the cloud, the first thing to define is the goals of the migration. This is because the goals will guide all subsequent decisions and strategies. Defining clear goals helps in understanding what the organization wants to achieve with cloud migration, whether it’s cost savings, scalability, improved performance, or something else. These goals are essential for aligning the migration with the business objectives and for setting the direction for the cloud strategy.

References = The importance of defining the goals of cloud migration is supported by the resources provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA in their Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) materials12. These resources emphasize the need for a clear understanding of the objectives and benefits expected from moving to the cloud, which is foundational before delving into specifics such as SLAs, requirements, or provider evaluation criteria.

The approach that encompasses social engineering of staff, bypassing of physical access controls, and penetration testing is typically associated with a Red team. A Red team is designed to simulate real-world attacks to test the effectiveness of security measures. They often use tactics like social engineering and penetration testing to identify vulnerabilities. In contrast, a Blue team is responsible for defending against attacks, a White box approach involves testing with internal knowledge of the system, and a Gray box is a combination of both White box and Black box testing methods.

References = The information aligns with the principles of cloud auditing and security assessments as outlined in the resources provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance, which emphasize the importance of understanding various security testing methodologies to effectively audit cloud systems123.

During the implementation phase of a cloud assurance program, the focus is on establishing the operational aspects that will ensure the ongoing security and compliance of the cloud environment. This includes developing the monitoring goals and requirements which are essential for setting up the assurance framework. It involves determining what needs to be monitored, how it should be monitored, and the metrics that will be used to measure compliance and performance.

References = The information aligns with best practices for cloud migration and assurance programs as outlined in various resources, including the Cloud Assurance Program Guide by Microsoft Cybersecurity1, which discusses the importance of developing and implementing policies for cloud data and system migration, and the Enterprise Guide to Successful Cloud Adoption by New Relic2, which emphasizes the role of observability in cloud migration, including the establishment of monitoring goals.

 The best approach for an auditor to review the operating effectiveness of the password requirement is to review the configuration settings on the Configuration Management (CM) tool and verify that the CM tool agents are functioning correctly on the VMs. This method ensures that the password policies are being enforced as intended and that the CM tool is effectively managing the configurations across the organization’s virtual machines. It provides a balance between relying solely on automated tools and manual verification processes.

References = This approach is supported by best practices in cloud security and auditing, which recommend a combination of automated tools and manual checks to ensure the effectiveness of security controls123. The use of CM tools for enforcing password policies is a common practice, and their effectiveness must be regularly verified to maintain the security posture of cloud services.

The CSA STAR Certification is based on criteria outlined in the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) in addition to ISO/IEC 27001 implementation. The CCM is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that covers 17 domains and 197 control objectives that address all key aspects of cloud technology. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization. The CSA STAR Certification demonstrates that a cloud service provider conforms to the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC 27001, has addressed issues critical to cloud security as outlined in the CCM, and has been assessed against the STAR Capability Maturity Model for the management of activities in CCM control areas1. The CSA STAR Certification is a third-party independent assessment of the security of a cloud service provider and provides a high level of assurance and trust to customers2.

References:

CSA STAR Certification - Azure Compliance | Microsoft Learn

STAR | CSA

Management representation is a term used in audit parlance to refer to the statements made by management in response to specific inquiries or through the financial statements, as part of the audit evidence that the auditor obtains. Management representation can be oral or written, but the auditor usually obtains written representation from management in the form of a letter that attests to the accuracy and completeness of the financial statements and other information provided to the auditor. The management representation letter is signed by senior management, such as the CEO and CFO, and is dated the same date of audit work completion. The management representation letter confirms or documents the representations explicitly or implicitly given to the auditor during the audit, indicates the continuing appropriateness of such representations, and reduces the possibility of misunderstanding concerning the matters that are the subject of the representations12.

Management representation is not a person or group of persons representing executive management during audits (A), as this would imply that management is not directly involved or accountable for the audit process. Management representation is not a mechanism to represent organizational structure (B), as this would imply that management representation is a graphical or diagrammatic tool to show the hierarchy or relationships within an organization. Management representation is not a project management technique to demonstrate management’s involvement in key project stages ©, as this would imply that management representation is a method or practice to monitor or report on the progress or outcomes of a project.

 The best way for the organization to take advantage of the supplier relationship feature of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is to leverage this feature to enable a smarter selection of the next cloud provider. The supplier relationship feature is a column in the CCM spreadsheet that indicates whether a control is influenced by contractual agreements between the cloud service provider and the cloud customer. This feature can help the organization to identify and compare the security and compliance capabilities of different cloud providers, as well as to negotiate and customize the terms of service (TOS) and service level agreements (SLA) according to their needs and requirements123.

The other options are not the best ways to use the supplier relationship feature. Option A, filter out only those controls directly influenced by contractual agreements, is not a good way to use the feature because it would exclude other important controls that are not influenced by contractual agreements, but still relevant for cloud security and governance. Option B, leverage this feature to enable the adoption of the Shared Responsibility Model, is not a good way to use the feature because the Shared Responsibility Model is defined by another column in the CCM spreadsheet, which indicates whether a control is applicable to the cloud service provider or the cloud customer. Option C, filter out only those controls having a direct impact on current TOS and SLA, is not a good way to use the feature because it would exclude other controls that may have an indirect or potential impact on the TOS and SLA, or that may be subject to change or negotiation in the future. References :=

What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1

Understanding the Cloud Control Matrix | CloudBolt Software3

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA2

A Type 1 SOC report assesses whether controls are appropriately designed at a specific point in time, while a Type 2 SOC report tests the operating effectiveness of these controls over a period. For cloud auditing, Type 2 is often preferred for its comprehensive approach to both design and effectiveness over time. The CCAK curriculum emphasizes understanding these reports as critical tools in auditing cloud service providers (referenced in the CCAK content on Assurance and Transparency and the CSA STAR framework).

=========================

One possible reason why the results of third-party audits and certification should be relied on when analyzing and assessing the cybersecurity risks in the cloud is to contrast the risk generated by the loss of control. When an organization moves its data and processes to the cloud, it inevitably loses some degree of control over its security and compliance posture, as it depends on the cloud service provider (CSP) to implement and maintain adequate security measures and controls1 This loss of control can increase the organization’s exposure to various cybersecurity risks, such as data breaches, unauthorized access, denial of service, malware infection, etc2

To mitigate these risks, the organization needs to have a clear understanding of the security and compliance level of the CSP, as well as the shared responsibility model that defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties3 Third-party audits and certification can provide some level of assurance that the CSP meets certain standards and requirements related to security and compliance, such as ISO/IEC 27001, CSA STAR, SOC 2, etc. These audits and certification can also help the organization compare and contrast the security posture of different CSPs in the market, as well as identify any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed or compensated.

Therefore, relying on the results of third-party audits and certification can help the organization contrast the risk generated by the loss of control in the cloud, and make informed decisions about selecting and managing its cloud services.

References: 1: Security in the Cloud: Are Audits and Certifications Really Enough?3 2: Understanding The Third-Party Impact On Cybersecurity Risk - Forbes2 3: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance : Reducing Cybersecurity Security Risk From and to Third Parties - ISACA1 : Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing

The technical impact of this incident would be categorized as an integrity breach in reference to the Top Threats Analysis methodology. The Top Threats Analysis methodology is a process developed by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) to help organizations identify, analyze, and mitigate the top threats to cloud computing, as defined in the CSA Top Threats reports. The methodology consists of six steps: scope definition, threat identification, technical impact identification, business impact identification, risk assessment, and risk treatment. Each of these provides different insights and visibility into the organization’s security posture.1

The technical impact identification step involves determining the impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information system caused by each threat. Confidentiality refers to the protection of data from unauthorized access or disclosure. Integrity refers to the protection of data from unauthorized modification or deletion. Availability refers to the protection of data and services from disruption or denial.2

An integrity breach occurs when a threat compromises the accuracy and consistency of the data or system. An integrity breach can result in data corruption, falsification, or manipulation, which can affect the reliability and trustworthiness of the data or system. An integrity breach can also have serious consequences for the business operations and decisions that depend on the data or system.3

In this case, the cybersecurity criminal was able to access an encrypted file system and overwrite parts of some files with random data. This means that the data in those files was altered without authorization and became unusable or invalid. This is a clear example of an integrity breach, as it violated the principle of ensuring that data is accurate and consistent throughout its lifecycle.4

References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 4: A Threat Analysis Methodology for Cloud Using CCM, page 811; What is CIA Triad? Definition and Examples2; Data Integrity vs Data Security: What’s The Difference?3; Data Integrity: Definition & Examples

To ensure a cloud service provider is complying with an organization’s privacy requirements, a cloud auditor should first review the organizational policies, standards, and procedures that define the privacy objectives, expectations, and responsibilities of the organization. The organizational policies, standards, and procedures should also reflect the legal and regulatory requirements that apply to the organization and its cloud service provider, as well as the best practices and guidelines for cloud privacy. The organizational policies, standards, and procedures should provide the basis for evaluating the cloud service provider’s privacy practices and controls, as well as the contractual terms and conditions that govern the cloud service agreement. The cloud auditor should compare the organizational policies, standards, and procedures with the cloud service provider’s self-disclosure statements, third-party audit reports, certifications, attestations, or other evidence of compliance123.

Reviewing the adherence to organization policies, standards, and procedures (B) is a subsequent step that the cloud auditor should perform after reviewing the organizational policies, standards, and procedures themselves. The cloud auditor should assess whether the cloud service provider is following the organization’s policies, standards, and procedures consistently and effectively, as well as whether the organization is monitoring and enforcing the compliance of the cloud service provider. The cloud auditor should also identify any gaps or deviations between the organization’s policies, standards, and procedures and the actual practices and controls of the cloud service provider123.

Reviewing the legal and regulatory requirements © is an important aspect of ensuring a cloud service provider is complying with an organization’s privacy requirements, but it is not the first step that a cloud auditor should take. The legal and regulatory requirements may vary depending on the jurisdiction, industry, or sector of the organization and its cloud service provider. The legal and regulatory requirements may also change over time or be subject to interpretation or dispute. Therefore, the cloud auditor should first review the organizational policies, standards, and procedures that incorporate and translate the legal and regulatory requirements into specific and measurable privacy objectives, expectations, and responsibilities for both parties123.

Reviewing the IT infrastructure (D) is not a relevant or sufficient step for ensuring a cloud service provider is complying with an organization’s privacy requirements. The IT infrastructure refers to the hardware, software, network, and other components that support the delivery of cloud services. The IT infrastructure is only one aspect of cloud security and privacy, and it may not be accessible or visible to the cloud auditor or the organization. The cloud auditor should focus on reviewing the privacy practices and controls that are implemented by the cloud service provider at different layers of the cloud service model (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS), as well as the contractual terms and conditions that define the privacy rights and obligations of both parties123. References :=

Cloud Audits and Compliance: What You Need To Know - Linford & Company LLP

Trust in the Cloud in audits of cloud services - PwC

Cloud Compliance & Regulations Resources | Google Cloud

 The best approach for an auditor to review the operating effectiveness of the password requirement is to review the configuration settings on the Configuration Management (CM) tool and verify that the CM tool agents are functioning correctly on the VMs. This method ensures that the password policies are being enforced as intended and that the CM tool is effectively managing the configurations across the organization’s virtual machines. It provides a balance between relying solely on automated tools and manual verification processes.

References = This approach is supported by best practices in cloud security and auditing, which recommend a combination of automated tools and manual checks to ensure the effectiveness of security controls123. The use of CM tools for enforcing password policies is a common practice, and their effectiveness must be regularly verified to maintain the security posture of cloud services.

A cloud service provider (CSP) providing cloud services currently being used by the United States federal government should obtain FedRAMP Authorization to assure compliance to stringent government standards. FedRAMP is a government-wide program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. FedRAMP enables agencies to leverage the security assessments of CSPs that have been approved by FedRAMP, and establishes a baseline set of security controls for cloud computing, based on NIST SP 800-53. FedRAMP also helps CSPs to demonstrate their compliance with relevant laws and regulations, such as FISMA, FIPS, and NIST standards. FedRAMP Authorization can be obtained through two paths: a provisional authorization from the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or an authorization from an individual agency12.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. CSA STAR Level Certificate: CSA STAR is a program for security assurance in the cloud that encompasses key principles of transparency, rigorous auditing, and harmonization of standards. CSA STAR Level Certificate is one of the certification options offered by CSA STAR, which is based on the ISO/IEC 27001 standard and the CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM). CSA STAR Level Certificate is not specific to the US federal government standards, and does not guarantee compliance with FedRAMP requirements3.

B. Multi-Tier Cloud Security (MTCS) Attestation: MTCS is a cloud security standard developed by the Singapore government to provide greater clarity and transparency on the level of security offered by different CSPs. MTCS defines three levels of security controls for CSPs: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3, with Level 3 being the most stringent. MTCS Attestation is a voluntary self-disclosure scheme for CSPs to declare their conformance to the MTCS standard. MTCS Attestation is not applicable to the US federal government standards, and does not ensure compliance with FedRAMP requirements4.

C. ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Certification: ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization. ISO/IEC 27001 Certification is an independent verification that an organization conforms to the ISO/IEC 27001 standard. ISO/IEC 27001 Certification is not exclusive to cloud computing or the US federal government standards, and does not cover all aspects of FedRAMP requirements5.

References:

Learn What FedRAMP is All About | FedRAMP | FedRAMP.gov

How to Become FedRAMP Authorized | FedRAMP.gov

STAR | CSA

Multi-Tiered Cloud Security Standard (MTCS SS)

ISO - ISO/IEC 27001 — Information security management

 The CSA STAR registry is a publicly accessible registry that documents the security and privacy controls provided by popular cloud computing offerings. The registry is based on the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), which is a framework of cloud-specific security best practices, and the GDPR Code of Conduct, which is a set of privacy principles for cloud service providers. The registry allows cloud customers to assess the security and compliance posture of cloud service providers, as well as to compare different providers based on their level of assurance. The registry also reduces the complexity and cost of filling out multiple customer questionnaires and requests for proposal (RFPs). Therefore, the best recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden is to direct all customer inquiries to the information in the CSA STAR registry, which can demonstrate the provider’s transparency, trustworthiness, and adherence to industry standards. The provider can also encourage customers to use the Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ), which is a standardized set of questions based on the CCM, to evaluate the provider’s security controls. Alternatively, the provider can pursue higher levels of assurance, such as third-party audits or continuous monitoring, to further validate their security and privacy practices and increase customer confidence.

References:

STAR Registry | CSA

STAR | CSA

CSA Security Trust Assurance and Risk (STAR) Registry Reaches Notable …

Why CSA STAR Is Important for Cloud Service Providers - A-LIGN

According to the CSA website, the primary purpose of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) for the CSA STAR program is to provide global, accredited, trusted certification of cloud providers1 The OCF is an industry initiative to allow global, trusted independent evaluation of cloud providers. It is a program for flexible, incremental and multi-layered cloud provider certification and/or attestation according to the Cloud Security Alliance’s industry leading security guidance and control framework2 The OCF aims to address the gaps within the IT ecosystem that are inhibiting market adoption of secure and reliable cloud services, such as the lack of simple, cost effective ways to evaluate and compare providers’ resilience, data protection, privacy, and service portability2 The OCF also aims to promote industry transparency and reduce complexity and costs for both providers and customers3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because facilitating an effective relationship between the cloud service provider and cloud client is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential benefit or outcome of it. The OCF can help facilitate an effective relationship between the provider and the client by providing a common language and framework for assessing and communicating the security and compliance posture of the provider, as well as enabling trust and confidence in the provider’s capabilities and performance. However, this is not the main goal or objective of the OCF, but rather a means to achieve it.

Option B is not correct because ensuring understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a possible implication or consequence of it. The OCF can help ensure understanding of true risk and perceived risk by the cloud service users by providing objective and verifiable information and evidence about the provider’s security and compliance level, as well as allowing comparison and benchmarking with other providers in the market. However, this is not the main aim or intention of the OCF, but rather a result or effect of it.

Option D is not correct because enabling the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements is not the primary purpose of the OCF for the CSA STAR program, but rather a potential advantage or opportunity for it. The OCF can enable the cloud service provider to prioritize resources to meet its own requirements by providing a flexible, incremental and multi-layered approach to certification and/or attestation that allows the provider to choose the level of assurance that suits their business needs and goals. However, this is not the main reason or motivation for the OCF, but rather a benefit or option for it.

References: 1: Open Certification Framework Working Group | CSA 2: Open Certification Framework | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance 3: Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing

The Architectural Relevance feature within the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) allows for the filtering of security controls based on relevant delivery models like SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS. This feature is crucial because it aligns the security controls with the specific cloud service models being used, ensuring that the controls are applicable and effective for the particular cloud architecture in place.

References = The CCM’s focus on delivery models is supported by the CSA Enterprise Architecture Working Group, which helps define the organizational relevance of each control, including the alignment with different cloud service models1.

APIs are likely to be attacked continuously by bad actors because they are generally the most exposed part of an application or system. APIs serve as the interface between different components or services, and often expose sensitive data or functionality to the outside world. APIs can be accessed by anyone with an Internet connection, and can be easily discovered by scanning or crawling techniques. Therefore, APIs are a prime target for attackers who want to exploit vulnerabilities, steal data, or disrupt services.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 88-89.

OWASP, The Ten Most Critical API Security Risks - OWASP Foundation, 2019, p. 4-5

Regarding suppliers of a cloud service provider, it is most important for the auditor to be aware that the client organization has a clear understanding of the provider’s suppliers. This is because cloud services often involve multiple parties in the supply chain, such as cloud providers, sub-providers, brokers, carriers, and auditors. Each party may have different roles and responsibilities in delivering the cloud services and ensuring their quality, security, and compliance. Therefore, it is essential for the client organization to have visibility and assurance of the performance and compliance of the provider’s suppliers and to establish clear and transparent agreements with them regarding their roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations.12

An auditor should be aware of the importance of the client organization’s understanding of the provider’s suppliers because it provides a basis for assessing the risks and challenges associated with outsourcing services to a cloud provider and its supply chain. An auditor can use the client organization’s understanding of the provider’s suppliers to verify that the client organization has conducted a thorough due diligence of the provider’s suppliers and their capabilities, qualifications, certifications, and reputation. An auditor can also use the client organization’s understanding of the provider’s suppliers to evaluate whether the client organization has implemented adequate controls and processes to monitor, audit, or verify the security and compliance status of their cloud services and data across the supply chain. An auditor can also use the client organization’s understanding of the provider’s suppliers to identify any gaps or weaknesses in the client organization’s security management program and to provide recommendations for improvement.34

References := Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.01; HIDDEN INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL …2; Cloud Computing: The Audit Challenge - ISACA3; Cloud Computing: Audit Considerations - AICPA4

The first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework is to identify key risk categories. Key risk categories are the broad areas or domains of cloud security and compliance that may affect the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. Key risk categories may include data security, identity and access management, encryption and key management, incident response, disaster recovery, audit assurance and compliance, etc. Identifying key risk categories helps to scope and focus the cloud risk assessment process, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their relevance and significance. Identifying key risk categories also helps to align and map the risks with the applicable standards, regulations, or frameworks that govern cloud security and compliance12.

Analyzing potential impact and likelihood (A) is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the third step. Analyzing potential impact and likelihood is the process of estimating the consequences or effects of a risk event on the business objectives, operations, processes, or functions (impact), as well as the probability or frequency of a risk event occurring (likelihood). Analyzing potential impact and likelihood helps to measure and quantify the severity or magnitude of the risk event, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their impact and likelihood12.

Establishing cloud risk profile (B) is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the second step. Establishing cloud risk profile is the process of defining and documenting the expected level of risk that an organization is willing to accept or tolerate in relation to its cloud services (risk appetite), as well as the actual level of risk that an organization faces or encounters in relation to its cloud services (risk exposure). Establishing cloud risk profile helps to determine and communicate the objectives, expectations, and responsibilities of cloud security and compliance, as well as to align and integrate them with the business strategy and goals12.

Evaluating and documenting the risks © is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the fourth step. Evaluating and documenting the risks is the process of assessing and reporting on the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls or actions that are implemented or applied to prevent, avoid, transfer, or accept a risk event (risk treatment), as well as identifying and addressing any gaps or issues that may arise (risk monitoring). Evaluating and documenting the risks helps to ensure that the actual level of risk is aligned with the desired level of risk, as well as to update and improve the risk management strategy and plan12. References :=

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

Cloud Risk—10 Principles and a Framework for Assessment - ISACA

The most effective way to ensure a vendor is compliant with the agreed-upon cloud service is to examine the cloud provider’s certifications and ensure the scope is appropriate. Certifications are independent attestations of the cloud provider’s compliance with various standards, regulations, and best practices related to cloud security, privacy, and governance1. They provide assurance to customers that the cloud provider has implemented adequate controls and processes to meet their contractual obligations and expectations2. However, not all certifications are equally relevant or comprehensive, so customers need to verify that the certifications cover the specific cloud service, region, and data type that they are using3. Customers should also review the certification reports or audit evidence to understand the scope, methodology, and results of the assessment4.

The other options are not as effective as examining the cloud provider’s certifications. Documenting the requirements and responsibilities within the customer contract is an important step to establish the terms and conditions of the cloud service agreement, but it does not guarantee that the vendor will comply with them5. Customers need to monitor and verify the vendor’s performance and compliance on an ongoing basis. Interviewing the cloud security team may provide some insights into the vendor’s compliance practices, but it may not be sufficient or reliable without independent verification or documentation. Pen testing the cloud service provider may reveal some vulnerabilities or weaknesses in the vendor’s security posture, but it may not cover all aspects of compliance or be authorized by the vendor. Pen testing should be done with caution and consent, as it may cause disruption or damage to the cloud service or violate the terms of service.

References:

Cloud Compliance: What You Need To Know - Linford & Company LLP1, section on Cloud Compliance

Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist | Trust Center2, section on Why Microsoft created the Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist

The top cloud providers for government | ZDNET3, section on What is FedRAMP?

Cloud Computing Security Considerations | Cyber.gov.au4, section on Certification

Cloud Audits and Compliance: What You Need To Know - Linford & Company LLP5, section on Cloud Compliance Management

Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist | Trust Center, section on How to use the checklist

Cloud Computing Security Considerations | Cyber.gov.au, section on Security governance

The top cloud providers for government | ZDNET, section on Penetration testing

Penetration Testing in AWS - Amazon Web Services (AWS), section on Introduction

This control specification aligns with the concept of independent audits, which are crucial for verifying that an organization adheres to its established policies, standards, procedures, and compliance obligations. The requirement for these reviews and assessments to be performed at least annually ensures ongoing compliance and the ability to address any areas of nonconformity. Independent audits provide an objective assessment and are essential for maintaining transparency and trust in the cloud services provided.

References = The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) specifically mentions the need for independent assessments to be conducted annually as part of the Audit Assurance and Compliance domain, which is detailed in the CCM’s guidelines and related documents provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA)12.

Implementing service level agreements (SLAs) around changes to baseline configurations is the most important way to manage risk from cloud vendors who might accidentally introduce unnecessary risk to an organization by adding new features to their solutions. A service level agreement (SLA) is a contract or a part of a contract that defines the expected level of service, performance, and quality that a cloud vendor will provide to an organization. An SLA can also specify the roles and responsibilities, the communication channels, the escalation procedures, and the penalties or remedies for non-compliance12.

Implementing SLAs around changes to baseline configurations can help an organization to manage the risk from cloud vendors who might add new features to their solutions without proper testing, validation, or notification. Baseline configurations are the standard or reference settings for a system or a network that are used to measure and maintain its security and performance. Changes to baseline configurations can introduce new vulnerabilities, errors, or incompatibilities that can affect the functionality, availability, or security of the system or network34. Therefore, an SLA can help an organization to ensure that the cloud vendor follows a change management process that includes steps such as risk assessment, impact analysis, approval, documentation, notification, testing, and rollback. An SLA can also help an organization to monitor and verify the changes made by the cloud vendor and to report and resolve any issues or incidents that may arise from them.

The other options are not the most effective ways to manage the risk from cloud vendors who might add new features to their solutions. Option A, deploying new features using cloud orchestration tools, is not a good way to manage the risk because cloud orchestration tools are used to automate and coordinate the deployment and management of complex cloud services and resources. Cloud orchestration tools do not address the issue of whether the new features added by the cloud vendor are necessary, secure, or compatible with the organization’s system or network. Option B, performing prior due diligence of the vendor, is not a good way to manage the risk because prior due diligence is a process that involves evaluating and verifying the background, reputation, capabilities, and compliance of a potential cloud vendor before entering into a contract with them. Prior due diligence does not address the issue of how the cloud vendor will handle changes to their solutions after the contract is signed. Option C, establishing responsibility in the vendor contract, is not a good way to manage the risk because establishing responsibility in the vendor contract is a process that involves defining and assigning the roles and obligations of both parties in relation to the cloud service delivery and performance. Establishing responsibility in the vendor contract does not address the issue of how the cloud vendor will communicate and coordinate with the organization about changes to their solutions. References :=

What is an SLA? Best practices for service-level agreements | CIO1

Service Level Agreements - Cloud Security Alliance2

What is Baseline Configuration? - Definition from Techopedia3

Baseline Configuration - Cloud Security Alliance4

Change Management - Cloud Security Alliance

Incident Response - Cloud Security Alliance

What is Cloud Orchestration? - Definition from Techopedia

Due Diligence - Cloud Security Alliance

Contractual Security Requirements - Cloud Security Alliance

 In the context of Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), a vulnerability assessment will scan virtual machines to identify vulnerabilities in both operating system and application infrastructure contained within the customer’s instances. IaaS is a cloud service model that provides customers with access to virtualized computing resources, such as servers, storage, and networks, hosted by a cloud service provider (CSP). The customer is responsible for installing, configuring, and maintaining the operating system and application software on the virtual machines, while the CSP is responsible for managing the underlying physical infrastructure. Therefore, a vulnerability assessment will scan the customer’s instances to detect any weaknesses or misconfigurations in the operating system and application layers that may expose them to potential threats. A vulnerability assessment can help the customer to prioritize and remediate the identified vulnerabilities, and to comply with relevant security standards and regulations12.

References:

Azure Security Control - Vulnerability Management | Microsoft Learn

How to Implement Enterprise Vulnerability Assessment - Gartner

The control audit frequency for an organization’s business continuity management and operational resilience strategy should be conducted annually. This frequency is considered appropriate for most organizations to ensure that their business continuity plans and operational resilience strategies remain effective and up-to-date with the current risk landscape. Conducting these audits annually aligns with the best practices of reviewing and updating business continuity plans to adapt to new threats, changes in the business environment, and lessons learned from past incidents. References = The annual audit frequency is supported by industry standards and guidelines that emphasize the importance of regular reviews to maintain operational resilience. These include resources from professional bodies and industry groups that outline the need for periodic assessments to ensure the effectiveness of business continuity and resilience strategies

 The cloud auditor should check if there is explicit documented approval from all customers whose data is affected by the transfer of production data to the test environment. This is because production data may contain sensitive or personal information that is subject to privacy and security regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Therefore, using production data for testing purposes without the consent of the data owners may violate their rights and expose the organization to legal and reputational risks. This is also stated in the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) control DSI-04: Production / Non-Production Environments12, which is part of the Data Security & Information Lifecycle Management domain. The CCM is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that can be used by cloud customers to build an operational cloud risk management program.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option A, approval of the change by the change advisory board, refers to the process of reviewing and authorizing changes to the system or software before they are implemented in the production environment. This is a good practice for ensuring the quality and reliability of the system or software, but it does not address the issue of using production data for testing purposes. Option C, training for the librarian, refers to the process of providing adequate education and awareness to the staff who are responsible for managing and transferring data between different environments. This is a good practice for ensuring the competence and accountability of the staff, but it does not address the issue of obtaining consent from the data owners. Option D, verification that the hardware of the test and production environments are compatible, refers to the process of ensuring that the system or software can run smoothly and consistently on both environments. This is a good practice for ensuring the performance and functionality of the system or software, but it does not address the issue of protecting the privacy and security of the production data. References :=

Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, Chapter 6: Cloud Security Controls

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA3

DSI-04: Production / Non-Production Environments - CSF Tools - Identity Digital1

DSI: Data Security & Information Lifecycle Management - CSF Tools - Identity Digital

 Deleting subscription owner accounts is an activity that MUST obtain a client’s approval in the context of cloud service provider activities. Subscription owner accounts are critical as they hold the ownership and control over the resources and services within a cloud subscription. Deleting these accounts can have significant implications, including loss of access, control, and potential data loss. Therefore, it is essential for a cloud service provider to seek explicit approval from the client before proceeding with such an action to ensure transparency, maintain trust, and avoid any unintended consequences.

References:

Microsoft Trust Center, Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist1.

Google Cloud, What is a Cloud Service Provider?2.

Partner Center, CSP agreements, price lists, and offers3.

Microsoft Azure, How to choose a cloud service provider4.

FCA, FG16/5 Guidance for firms outsourcing to the ‘cloud’ and other third-party IT services

 The greatest risk associated with hidden interdependencies between cloud services is the lack of visibility over the cloud service providers’ supply chain. Hidden interdependencies are the complex and often unknown relationships and dependencies between different cloud services, providers, sub-providers, and customers. These interdependencies can create challenges and risks for the security, availability, performance, and compliance of the cloud services and data. For example, a failure or breach in one cloud service can affect other cloud services that depend on it, or a change in one cloud provider’s policy or contract can impact other cloud providers or customers that rely on it.12

The lack of visibility over the cloud service providers’ supply chain means that the customers do not have enough information or control over how their cloud services and data are delivered, managed, and protected by the providers and their sub-providers. This can expose the customers to various threats and vulnerabilities, such as data breaches, data loss, service outages, compliance violations, legal disputes, or contractual conflicts. The customers may also face difficulties in monitoring, auditing, or verifying the security and compliance status of their cloud services and data across the supply chain. Therefore, it is important for the customers to understand the hidden interdependencies between cloud services and to establish clear and transparent agreements with their cloud providers and sub-providers regarding their roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations.3

References := How to identify and map service dependencies - Gremlin1; Mitigate Risk for Data Center Network Migration - Cisco2; Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.03; HIDDEN INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL …

SLAs in cloud computing define performance metrics and uptime commitments, making them crucial for monitoring and measuring service delivery against predefined benchmarks. Metrics from SLAs help in tracking service performance, compliance with contractual obligations, and cloud service provider accountability. ISACA’s CCAK outlines the importance of SLAs for cloud governance and risk management, as they provide a measurable baseline that informs cloud audit activities (referenced in CCM under Governance, Risk, and Compliance - GOV-05).

=========================

From an auditor’s perspective, shadow IT is best described as a risk that jeopardizes business continuity planning. Shadow IT refers to the use of IT-related hardware or software that is not under the control of, or has not been approved by, the organization’s IT department. This can lead to a lack of visibility into the IT infrastructure and potential gaps in security and compliance measures. In the context of business continuity planning, shadow IT can introduce unknown risks and vulnerabilities that are not accounted for in the organization’s disaster recovery and business continuity plans, thereby posing a threat to the organization’s ability to maintain or quickly resume critical functions in the event of a disruption.

References = The answer is based on general knowledge of shadow IT risks and their impact on business continuity planning. Specific references from the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) are not directly cited here, as my current capabilities do not include accessing or verifying content from external documents or websites. However, the concept of shadow IT as a risk to business continuity is a recognized concern in IT governance and auditing practices1234.

 The BSI Criteria Catalogue C5 is a document that has been provided by the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) in Germany to support customers in selecting, controlling, and monitoring their cloud service providers (CSPs). The C5 stands for Cloud Computing Compliance Criteria Catalogue and specifies minimum requirements for secure cloud computing. The C5 is primarily intended for professional CSPs, their auditors, and customers of the CSPs. The C5 covers 17 domains and 114 control objectives that address all key aspects of cloud security, such as data protection, identity and access management, encryption and key management, incident response, audit assurance, and compliance. The C5 also maps to other industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks, such as ISO 27001/27002/27017/27018, NIST SP 800-53, CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), COBIT, GDPR, etc. The C5 helps customers to evaluate and compare the security and compliance posture of different CSPs, and to verify that the CSPs meet their contractual obligations and legal requirements12.

References:

BSI - C5 criteria catalogue - Federal Office for Information Security

Germany C5 - Azure Compliance | Microsoft Learn

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is a standard that provides guidelines for information security controls applicable to the provision and use of cloud services by providing additional implementation guidance for relevant controls specified in ISO/IEC 27002, as well as additional controls with implementation guidance that specifically relate to cloud services1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is designed to be used by organizations for cloud services that intend to select controls within the process of implementing an information security management system based on ISO/IEC 27001, which is the international standard for information security management systems1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 can help organizations to establish, implement, maintain and continually improve their information security in the cloud environment, as well as to demonstrate compliance with contractual and legal obligations1.

ISO/IEC 27002 is a code of practice for information security controls that provides best practice recommendations on information security management for use by those who are responsible for initiating, implementing or maintaining information security management systems2. However, ISO/IEC 27002 does not provide specific guidance for cloud services, which is why ISO/IEC 27017:2015 was developed as an extension to ISO/IEC 27002 for cloud services1.

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is a set of security controls that provides organizations with a detailed understanding of security concepts and principles that are aligned to the cloud model. The CCM is not a standard, but rather a framework that can be used to assess the overall security risk of a cloud provider. The CCM can also be mapped to other standards, such as ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27017:2015, to facilitate compliance and assurance activities.

NIST SP 800-146 is a publication from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that provides an overview of cloud computing, its characteristics, service models, deployment models, benefits, challenges and considerations. NIST SP 800-146 is not a standard, but rather a reference document that can help organizations to understand the basics of cloud computing and its implications for information security. NIST SP 800-146 does not provide specific guidance or controls for cloud services, but rather refers to other standards and frameworks, such as ISO/IEC 27001 and CSA CCM, for more detailed information on cloud security. References :=

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - Information technology — Security techniques …

ISO/IEC 27017:2015(en), Information technology ? Security techniques …

ISO 27017 Certification - Cloud Security Services | NQA

An introduction to ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - 6clicks

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - Information technology — Security techniques …

[Cloud Controls Matrix | Cloud Security Alliance]

[NIST Cloud Computing Synopsis and Recommendations]

The first step to switch from the ISO/IEC 27002 control framework to the NIST 800-53 control framework is to map ISO/IEC 27002 and NIST 800-53 and detect gaps and commonalities. This step can help the organization to understand the similarities and differences between the two frameworks, and to identify which controls are already implemented, which controls need to be added or modified, and which controls are no longer applicable. Mapping can also help the organization to leverage the existing work done under ISO/IEC 27002 and avoid starting from scratch or discarding valuable information. Mapping can also help the organization to align with both frameworks, as they are not mutually exclusive or incompatible. In fact, NIST SP 800-53, Revision 5 provides a mapping table between NIST 800-53 and ISO/IEC 27001 in Appendix H-21. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that is based on ISO/IEC 27002, which is a code of practice for information security controls2.

References:

NIST SP 800-53, Revision 5 Control Mappings to ISO/IEC 27001

ISO - ISO/IEC 27002:2013 - Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls

Market share and geolocation are primarily related to the business perspective because they are key factors in understanding a company’s position and reach in the market. Market share provides insight into the competitive landscape and a company’s relative success in acquiring customers compared to its competitors. Geolocation, on the other hand, helps businesses target and personalize their services to customers based on location, which can be crucial for marketing strategies and understanding consumer behavior.

References = The relevance of market share and geolocation to the business perspective is highlighted in resources provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA). These resources discuss the impact of geolocation technology on business practices and the importance of understanding market dynamics for strategic decision-making12.

An external audit is an appropriate tool and technique to support a customer’s verification of the cloud service provider’s claims regarding its responsibilities according to the shared responsibility model. An external audit is an independent and objective examination of the cloud service provider’s policies, procedures, controls, and performance by a qualified third-party auditor. An external audit can provide assurance that the cloud service provider is fulfilling its obligations and meeting the customer’s expectations in terms of security, compliance, availability, reliability, and quality. An external audit can also identify any gaps or weaknesses in the cloud service provider’s security posture and suggest recommendations for improvement.

An external audit can be based on various standards, frameworks, and regulations that are relevant to the cloud service provider’s industry and domain. For example, some common external audits for cloud service providers are:

ISO/IEC 27001: This is an international standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS). An ISMS is a systematic approach to managing sensitive information so that it remains secure. An ISO/IEC 27001 certification demonstrates that the cloud service provider has implemented a comprehensive and effective ISMS that covers all aspects of information security, including risk assessment, policy development, asset management, access control, incident management, business continuity, and compliance.1

SOC 2: This is an attestation report that evaluates the cloud service provider’s security controls based on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Trust Services Criteria. The Trust Services Criteria are a set of principles and criteria for evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of controls that affect the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy of a system. A SOC 2 report provides assurance that the cloud service provider has implemented adequate controls to protect the customer’s data and systems.2

CSA STAR: This is a program for flexible, incremental, and multi-layered cloud provider certification and/or attestation according to the Cloud Security Alliance’s industry leading security guidance and control framework. The CSA STAR program consists of three levels of assurance: Level 1: Self-Assessment, Level 2: Third-Party Audit, and Level 3: Continuous Auditing. The CSA STAR program aims to provide transparency, assurance, and trust in the cloud ecosystem by enabling customers to assess and compare the security and compliance posture of cloud service providers.3

The other options listed are not suitable for supporting a customer’s verification of the cloud service provider’s claims regarding its responsibilities according to the shared responsibility model. An internal audit is an audit conducted by the cloud service provider itself or by an internal auditor hired by the cloud service provider. An internal audit may not be as independent or objective as an external audit, and it may not provide sufficient evidence or credibility to the customer. A contractual agreement is a legal document that defines the roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations of both the cloud service provider and the customer. A contractual agreement may specify the terms and conditions for service delivery, performance, availability, security, compliance, data protection, incident response, dispute resolution, liability, and termination. However, a contractual agreement alone does not verify or validate whether the cloud service provider is actually fulfilling its claims or meeting its contractual obligations. A security assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the security risks and vulnerabilities of a system or an organization. A security assessment may involve various methods such as vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, threat modeling, or risk analysis. A security assessment may provide useful information about the current state of security of a system or an organization, but it may not cover all aspects of the shared responsibility model or provide assurance that the cloud service provider is complying with its responsibilities on an ongoing basis.

The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that can be used by cloud customers to build an operational cloud risk management program. The CCM provides guidance on which security controls should be implemented by which actor within the cloud supply chain, and maps the controls to industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks. The CCM can help cloud customers to assess the security posture of their cloud service providers, document their own responsibilities and requirements, and establish a baseline for cloud security assurance and compliance. References :=

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA1

What is the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)? - Cloud Security Alliance2

Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, Chapter 5: Cloud Assurance Frameworks