CAS-004 Governance, Risk, and Compliance Practice Question
An organization is implementing a risk management framework and wants to align with a standard that emphasizes a continuous, iterative process for identifying, assessing, and responding to risk. Which framework is most appropriate?
⚠ Common exam trap
CAS-005 often tests the distinction between risk management frameworks and risk analysis methodologies, causing candidates to confuse FAIR (quantitative analysis) with a full framework like NIST RMF.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
NIST RMF
The NIST Risk Management Framework (RMF) is explicitly designed as a continuous, iterative process for identifying, assessing, and responding to risk. It consists of six steps: Categorize, Select, Implement, Assess, Authorize, and Monitor, which are repeated throughout the system lifecycle. This aligns perfectly with the requirement for a continuous, iterative approach. ISO 27005 provides guidelines for risk management but is not as prescriptive about the continuous process as NIST RMF. FAIR is a quantitative risk analysis methodology, and COBIT is a governance framework for IT management, not specifically a risk management framework with a continuous iterative process.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
FAIR
Why it's wrong here
FAIR quantifies risk in financial terms through factor analysis of loss event frequency and magnitude; it is an analysis methodology, not a continuous iterative Identify-Assess-Respond process. It would be correct when the requirement is monetary risk quantification for prioritisation, not framework-level cycle alignment.
- ✗
ISO 27005
Why it's wrong here
ISO 27005 provides guidance on information security risk management but does not itself prescribe the continuous, iterative Identify-Assess-Respond cycle the stem describes; it supports ISO 27001 implementation. It would suit an organisation already adopting ISO 27001 needing risk methodology guidance, not one seeking a standalone iterative framework.
- ✗
COBIT
Why it's wrong here
COBIT is a governance framework for enterprise IT, covering objectives, controls and maturity across the whole IT estate, not a dedicated continuous risk cycle. It would be chosen when aligning IT governance and control objectives with business strategy, rather than for iterative risk identification, assessment and response.
- ✓
NIST RMF
Why this is correct
The NIST Risk Management Framework prescribes a continuous, iterative cycle — Prepare, Categorise, Select, Implement, Assess, Authorise and Monitor — so risk identification, assessment and response recur throughout the system lifecycle rather than as a one-off exercise.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CAS-005 question is part of Courseiva's 973-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official CompTIA exam blueprint
This CAS-005 practice question is part of Courseiva's free CompTIA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CAS-005 exam.