hardMultiple Choice
CRISC Practice Question: After a major system upgrade, the control testing…
After a major system upgrade, the control testing team reports that a critical automated control failed intermittently. The control owner states it's a temporary glitch. What is the best course of action?
⚠ Common exam trap
Test-takers frequently assume a temporary glitch is benign and choose to accept the risk (D) or increase monitoring (C), but the CRISC exam emphasizes that any control failure—especially intermittent ones—must be investigated to ensure the control's design is sound and the risk is properly understood.
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
✓
Perform a root cause analysis before deeming it effective.
An intermittent failure in a critical automated control requires a root cause analysis (RCA) to determine whether the issue is a transient software bug, a configuration error, or a deeper systemic flaw. Without understanding the root cause, the control cannot be deemed effective, and simply replacing, monitoring, or accepting the risk could leave the organization exposed to material control failures. The RCA should examine system logs, error codes, and change management records to isolate the intermittent behavior.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Replace the control with a manual one.
Why it's wrong here
Replacing an automated control with a manual one discards the root-cause investigation the intermittent failure demands, and manual execution cannot match the automated control's consistency or coverage. It is tempting when a control keeps failing, yet manual controls suit low-volume, judgement-based checks rather than high-volume automated enforcement.
- ✓
Perform a root cause analysis before deeming it effective.
Why this is correct
Intermittent failure of an automated control signals a genuine defect rather than a transient glitch, so effectiveness cannot be assumed. Root cause analysis identifies the underlying fault before the control is re-tested and reliance placed upon it.
- ✗
Increase frequency of monitoring.
Why it's wrong here
Increasing monitoring frequency only detects further failures sooner; it neither diagnoses the intermittent fault nor restores the control, so the underlying exposure persists. It is tempting because monitoring is a recognised risk response, yet it is correct for tracking a known, accepted risk rather than remediating a critical control that has already failed.
- ✗
Accept the risk and document the finding.
Why it's wrong here
Accepting and documenting the risk leaves a critical control failing without diagnosis, and acceptance requires risk-owner authority plus evidence the exposure is within tolerance. It is tempting because documentation feels like governance, but acceptance suits risks that cannot be mitigated cost-effectively, not an unexplained intermittent control failure.
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.