easyMultiple Choice
CISM Practice Question: After successfully containing an incident, the…
After successfully containing an incident, the incident response team discovers that the attacker exploited a previously unknown vulnerability in a web application. The vulnerability is not yet patched by the vendor. The organization's management is concerned about the risk of another attack using the same vulnerability. What should the team recommend as the immediate action to reduce this risk?
⚠ Common exam trap
CISM often tests the distinction between immediate risk mitigation (compensating controls/workarounds) and longer-term remediation (vendor patching, disclosure), tempting candidates to choose the 'responsible' vendor-reporting option instead of the action that actually reduces current risk.
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
✓
Implement a workaround to mitigate the vulnerability
When a zero-day vulnerability has no vendor patch, the only immediate way to reduce exposure is to apply a compensating control or workaround (e.g., virtual patching via WAF rules, disabling the vulnerable function, or restricting access). This directly reduces the attack surface without waiting for the vendor. It is the fastest risk-reduction action available to the IR team.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Implement a workaround to mitigate the vulnerability
Why this is correct
With no vendor patch available, a compensating workaround — such as a web application firewall rule, virtual patching or disabling the affected function — immediately reduces exploitability. This satisfies the stem's demand for urgent risk reduction while a permanent fix is developed.
- ✗
Disable the web application until a patch is available
Why it's wrong here
Disabling the application removes the service entirely, which exceeds containment and harms availability when compensating controls such as a WAF virtual patch or input filtering could mitigate the unpatched flaw. Disabling is tempting because it guarantees the vulnerability cannot be exploited, but it is a last resort when no mitigation exists.
- ✗
Report the vulnerability to the software vendor
Why it's wrong here
Reporting to the vendor starts a disclosure process that may take months, leaving the unpatched flaw exploitable throughout. It is tempting because responsible disclosure is a genuine obligation, and it would be the right choice once mitigation is in place, but it does not itself reduce the immediate risk.
- ✗
Develop an in-house patch for the vulnerability
Why it's wrong here
Writing an in-house patch requires source code access and regression testing the vendor has not performed, and cannot be deployed to a vendor-hosted application. It is tempting as a direct fix, and would suit internally developed software, but here compensating controls such as a WAF rule address the exposure now.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CISM question is part of Courseiva's 924-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 ISACA exam blueprint
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.