easyMultiple Choice
CRISC Practice Question: Based on the exhibit, which key risk indicator…
Exhibit
Refer to the exhibit. --- Syslog Message: Mar 15 09:45:23 auth-server sshd[1234]: Failed password for admin from 10.0.0.5 port 22 ssh2 Mar 15 09:46:10 auth-server sshd[1234]: Failed password for admin from 10.0.0.5 port 22 ssh2 Mar 15 09:46:55 auth-server sshd[1234]: Failed password for admin from 10.0.0.5 port 22 ssh2 ---
Based on the exhibit, which key risk indicator (KRI) would this log data be MOST useful for calculating?
⚠ Common exam trap
Watch out — candidates often confuse authentication failure logs with broader security metrics like system uptime or configuration changes, failing to recognize that KRIs must be directly derivable from the specific log data provided.
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
✓
Number of failed authentication attempts per hour.
The log data shows repeated failed login attempts from multiple IP addresses targeting user accounts, which directly measures authentication failures over time. This makes it the most suitable source for calculating the number of failed authentication attempts per hour, a key risk indicator for brute-force or credential-stuffing attacks.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Number of failed authentication attempts per hour.
Why this is correct
Failed authentication attempts per hour is a quantifiable KRI derived directly from authentication log entries, giving a leading indicator of credential-stuffing or brute-force activity. The log data supplies the raw event counts, so this metric satisfies the stem's requirement for a calculable key risk indicator.
- ✗
Percentage of successful user logins.
Why it's wrong here
Login success counts measure authentication outcomes, not the risk exposure the exhibit's log data captures. Such a KRI suits monitoring brute-force or credential-stuffing trends against Microsoft Entra ID sign-in logs, where failed-versus-successful ratios reveal attack pressure.
- ✗
Percentage of system uptime.
Why it's wrong here
Percentage of system uptime measures availability from operational monitoring, not the security events recorded in the log data. It is tempting because uptime KRIs are common and easy to compute, and would be the right choice when the exhibit showed availability metrics such as service health or outage duration rather than authentication or access activity.
- ✗
Number of unauthorized changes to system configurations.
Why it's wrong here
Unauthorised configuration changes require change-audit or file-integrity telemetry, not the authentication events shown in the exhibit, which record sign-in outcomes and conditional access results. It tempts because change monitoring is a genuine KRI, and would be correct where the log source captures configuration drift or privileged change activity.
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.