mediumMultiple Choice
CRISC Practice Question: A risk officer is evaluating the effectiveness of…
A risk officer is evaluating the effectiveness of a control that prevents unauthorized changes to configuration files. The control has not detected any unauthorized changes in the past year. What does this indicate?
⚠ Common exam trap
Candidates often assume 'no detected violations' equals 'control is effective,' but CRISC emphasizes that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence—further testing is required to rule out detection failures.
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
✓
Further testing is needed to determine control effectiveness.
The absence of detected unauthorized changes does not automatically confirm control effectiveness; it could also indicate that the control is not properly configured to detect changes (e.g., missing file integrity monitoring rules, incorrect baseline, or disabled logging). Further testing—such as manually introducing a test change or reviewing audit logs—is required to verify that the control can actually detect violations. This aligns with CRISC best practices for validating control effectiveness through testing rather than relying solely on absence of alerts.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
The control is unnecessary because no changes occurred.
Why it's wrong here
Zero detected changes does not make the control unnecessary; unauthorised changes may have been attempted or prevented silently. The control's purpose is to stop changes, so no alerts could mean it worked. Necessity is determined by risk exposure, not by observed incident counts.
- ✗
The control is not configured correctly to detect changes.
Why it's wrong here
No detected changes does not imply misconfiguration; the control may be correctly blocking all attempts. Assuming faulty detection without evidence ignores the possibility of genuine zero violations. Misconfiguration is one hypothesis among several, not a conclusion from absence of alerts alone.
- ✗
The control is operating effectively and no violations occurred.
Why it's wrong here
Absence of detected violations does not prove effectiveness; the control could be bypassed, misconfigured, or logging disabled. A year of zero alerts indicates only that no events were recorded, not that none occurred. Effectiveness requires testing or independent validation, not passive observation.
- ✓
Further testing is needed to determine control effectiveness.
Why this is correct
Zero detected changes may reflect a genuinely effective control or simply a lack of testing rigour, so absence of findings alone proves nothing. Additional testing, such as simulated unauthorised changes, is required to confirm the control actually functions.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 1,062 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.