CRISC Risk Response and Mitigation Practice Question
A risk assessment for a financial trading platform has identified a high-risk vulnerability in the order matching engine. The risk owner has recommended implementing compensating controls rather than fixing the underlying code. Which TWO of the following are valid compensating controls? (Choose two.)
⚠ Common exam trap
A common mix-up: candidates confuse detective controls (logging) or remediation (rewriting code) with compensating controls, failing to recognize that a compensating control must actively reduce risk without fixing the original vulnerability.
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
✓
Require manual approval for all orders above a threshold
Requiring manual approval for orders above a threshold directly reduces the impact of a successful exploit by preventing large-scale financial loss, even if the underlying code vulnerability remains unpatched. This compensating control shifts the risk acceptance decision to a human operator, effectively adding a business logic layer that can catch anomalous or malicious order matching attempts. Option E is correct because rate limiting on order submissions mitigates the risk of an attacker exploiting the vulnerability to submit a high volume of malicious orders, thereby limiting the blast radius and preventing denial-of-service or market manipulation scenarios.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Rewrite the order matching engine in a memory-safe language
Why it's wrong here
Rewriting the code removes the vulnerability, which is remediation, not a compensating control.
- ✗
Deploy a Web Application Firewall (WAF) to block malicious payloads
Why it's wrong here
A WAF is a preventive control that blocks attacks but does not compensate for the vulnerability; it's a separate security layer.
- ✗
Enable detailed logging for all order matching transactions
Why it's wrong here
Logging is detective and helps in forensics but does not reduce the likelihood or impact of the vulnerability.
- ✓
Require manual approval for all orders above a threshold
Why this is correct
Manual approval adds a human verification step, reducing the impact of a potential exploit.
- ✓
Implement rate limiting on order submissions
Why this is correct
Rate limiting reduces the likelihood of exploitation by limiting the number of requests, thus compensating for the vulnerability.
Quick reference
AAA Protocol Comparison
| Protocol | Port(s) | Encryption | Transport | Primary Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RADIUS | 1812 / 1813 | Password only | UDP | Network access control |
| TACACS+ | 49 | Full packet | TCP | Device administration |
| Diameter | 3868 | Full session | TCP / SCTP | Carrier / mobile networks |
| 802.1X | — | EAP-based | Layer 2 | Port-based access control |
TACACS+ encrypts the entire packet; RADIUS only encrypts the password field — a key exam distinction.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 983 original CRISC practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CRISC 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 CRISC exam.