hardMultiple Choice
CRISC Practice Question: Is implementing a new cloud-based customer…
An organization is implementing a new cloud-based customer relationship management (CRM) system. The risk practitioner is designing the control monitoring plan. Which approach BEST ensures continuous monitoring of controls across both the application and infrastructure layers?
⚠ Common exam trap
Many candidates confuse point-in-time assurance (SOC 2 reports) with continuous monitoring, or they assume a generic SIEM is sufficient without considering the need for application-specific log ingestion and correlation.
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
✓
Deploy an automated monitoring tool that ingests audit logs from the CRM and cloud infrastructure APIs to trigger alerts on anomalies.
It establishes a continuous, automated monitoring feedback loop by ingesting audit logs from both the CRM application (e.g., user activity logs) and cloud infrastructure APIs (e.g., AWS CloudTrail, Azure Monitor). This approach enables real-time anomaly detection and alerting, which is essential for maintaining control effectiveness across the entire stack without manual intervention.
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 generic Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) system with standard rules.
Why it's wrong here
Generic SIEM rules lack the CRM-specific application telemetry and infrastructure baselines needed to correlate control events across both layers. SIEM is the right tool when log sources and use cases are tailored; standard rules alone leave application-layer control monitoring uncovered.
- ✓
Deploy an automated monitoring tool that ingests audit logs from the CRM and cloud infrastructure APIs to trigger alerts on anomalies.
Why this is correct
Ingesting audit logs from both the CRM and cloud infrastructure APIs gives continuous, cross-layer visibility that manual reviews cannot sustain. Automated anomaly alerting satisfies the stem's requirement for ongoing control monitoring across application and infrastructure simultaneously, rather than point-in-time assessment of a single layer.
- ✗
Rely on the CRM vendor's SOC 2 Type II report for control assurance.
Why it's wrong here
A SOC 2 Type II report covers the vendor's controls at a point in time over an audit period; it does not provide continuous monitoring of the organisation's own application and infrastructure layers. Vendor attestation suits initial due diligence, not ongoing control assurance across both layers.
- ✗
Schedule quarterly manual reviews of user access logs and system configurations.
Why it's wrong here
Quarterly manual reviews are periodic, not continuous, so control failures between reviews go undetected across the application and infrastructure layers. Manual review suits low-frequency assurance or audit sampling, but the stem demands ongoing automated monitoring.
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.