CRISC Risk Response and Reporting Practice Question
An organization uses continuous monitoring via SIEM rules to detect anomalies. The SIEM generates an alert when the number of failed logins exceeds a threshold. This monitoring is an example of:
⚠ Common exam trap
Candidates often confuse 'continuous monitoring' with 'continuous auditing' or assume any automated activity is 'vulnerability scanning,' but the key differentiator is the real-time, rule-based detection of operational anomalies versus scheduled scans for configuration weaknesses.
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
✓
Continuous monitoring
This scenario describes continuous monitoring because the SIEM is configured with rules that automatically and perpetually analyze login events in real time, generating alerts when the count of failed logins surpasses a predefined threshold. Unlike periodic or manual checks, this process operates 24/7 without human intervention, directly detecting anomalies as they occur.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Periodic control testing
Why it's wrong here
Periodic control testing evaluates control design and operation at intervals, whereas the SIEM rule monitors events continuously and raises alerts automatically. It is tempting because both assess control effectiveness, and periodic testing would be correct when evidence is gathered on a scheduled cycle rather than through real-time event correlation.
- ✓
Continuous monitoring
Why this is correct
SIEM rules that alert when failed logins exceed a threshold constitute continuous monitoring: automated, ongoing collection and analysis of event data against defined criteria. This matches the stem exactly, distinguishing it from periodic assessments or manual review, and satisfies the requirement for real-time anomaly detection.
- ✗
Access review
Why it's wrong here
An access review is a periodic recertification of user entitlements, not real-time detection of failed-login anomalies. It is tempting because both concern access, and access review would be correct when validating that permissions remain appropriate, but it does not analyse authentication events continuously as the SIEM rule does.
- ✗
Vulnerability scanning
Why it's wrong here
Vulnerability scanning identifies known weaknesses in systems and software, not anomalous authentication behaviour. It is tempting because both are automated security monitoring, and vulnerability scanning would be correct when enumerating unpatched flaws, but it does not detect failed-login thresholds or correlate log events.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every CRISC question from scratch — 1,062 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. 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.