CRISC Risk Response and Reporting Practice Question
Which of the following is a leading Key Risk Indicator (KRI) for the risk of a data breach?
⚠ Common exam trap
Many exam-takers confuse lagging indicators (like breach count or detection time) with leading indicators, failing to recognize that a leading KRI must predict future risk, not measure past events.
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
✓
Percentage of systems with unpatched critical vulnerabilities
A leading KRI predicts future risk events. The percentage of systems with unpatched critical vulnerabilities directly indicates an increasing attack surface and likelihood of exploitation, making it a leading indicator for a data breach. In contrast, lagging indicators like detection time or breach count measure past incidents.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Average time to detect a breach
Why it's wrong here
Average detection time is a lagging indicator: it measures how quickly breaches were found after occurring, not the likelihood of future ones. It tempts because faster detection reduces impact, but leading KRIs must precede the event, such as unpatched systems or failed access reviews.
- ✗
Number of data breaches in the past quarter
Why it's wrong here
Past breaches are lagging indicators, measuring harm already realised rather than forward-looking exposure. It tempts because historical breach counts inform likelihood estimates, but a leading KRI must predict future breach risk, such as vulnerability counts or patch latency.
- ✓
Percentage of systems with unpatched critical vulnerabilities
Why this is correct
Unpatched critical vulnerabilities represent exposure that attackers can exploit, so the percentage measures conditions preceding a breach rather than breach incidents already suffered. That forward-looking quality makes it a leading indicator, unlike metrics such as confirmed data loss volumes.
- ✗
Number of security incidents closed
Why it's wrong here
Closed incidents are a lagging indicator, recording breaches already contained, so they cannot signal future breach likelihood. Counting closures is tempting because it measures operational workload and remediation throughput, which suits service-management reporting rather than forward-looking risk prediction.
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.