easyMultiple SelectObjective-mapped
Indicators of Weak Information Security Governance
A security audit has identified several governance weaknesses. Which TWO of the following are most likely to indicate a lack of effective information security governance? (Choose two.)
Quick Answer
The answer is the absence of a formal security steering committee and a lack of periodic risk assessments. These two indicators directly reveal weak information security governance because governance is fundamentally about oversight, alignment, and accountability—a steering committee provides strategic direction and resource approval, while regular risk assessments ensure that security controls evolve with the threat landscape and business needs. On the Certified Information Security Manager CISM exam, this concept tests your ability to distinguish governance failures from operational failures; a common trap is confusing a missing policy (an operational issue) with a missing oversight body (a governance issue). When evaluating indicators of weak information security governance, remember that governance is about the “who” and “why” of decision-making, not just the “what” of controls. Memory tip: think “Committee and Compliance”—if either the steering committee or the risk assessment cadence is missing, governance is broken.
⚠ Common exam trap
ISACA often tests the distinction between governance (strategic oversight, risk management, committee structures) and operational controls (training, patching, policy distribution), leading candidates to mistake operational deficiencies for governance weaknesses.
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
✓
Risk assessments are not performed on a regular basis.
A is correct because regular risk assessments are a foundational requirement of information security governance, as they ensure that security controls remain aligned with evolving threats and business objectives. Without periodic risk assessments, the organization cannot demonstrate due diligence or maintain an accurate risk profile, which is a direct indicator of governance failure.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Risk assessments are not performed on a regular basis.
Why this is correct
Regular risk assessments are fundamental to governance to ensure risk is managed.
- ✓
No formal security steering committee exists.
Why this is correct
A steering committee provides strategic direction and oversight, which is a core governance function.
- ✗
The information security policy is not available on the intranet.
Why it's wrong here
Policy availability is an operational issue; governance would require that policies exist and are reviewed, not necessarily their distribution method.
- ✗
Employees have not completed annual security awareness training.
Why it's wrong here
Lack of training is an operational issue, not a governance gap.
- ✗
Antivirus software is not updated on all endpoints.
Why it's wrong here
This is a technical control deficiency, not a governance failure.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CISM question is part of Courseiva's 871-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 →
Same concept, more angles
1 more way this is tested on CISM
These questions test the same concept from different angles. Work through them to make sure you can recognise it however the exam phrases it.
Variation 1. Based on the exhibit, which role is missing from the governance policy that would be essential for enforcing accountability?
hard- A.External auditor
- B.Internal audit function
- ✓ C.A role with authority to enforce compliance and impose consequences
- D.Chief compliance officer
Why C: The governance policy lacks a role with explicit authority to enforce compliance and impose consequences, which is essential for accountability. Without such enforcement, policies become aspirational rather than binding, as no mechanism exists to address non-compliance or ensure corrective actions. This aligns with the CISM principle that governance requires clear accountability structures, including disciplinary measures for violations.
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CISM practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA 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 CISM exam.