An organization's internal audit team performed a security audit on the company's system and reported that the manufacturing application is rarely updated along with other issues categorized as minor. Six months later, an external audit team reviewed the same system with the same scope, but identified severe weaknesses in the manufacturing application's security controls. What is MOST likely to be the root cause of the internal audit team's failure in detecting these security issues?
If the internal audit team failed to detect severe weaknesses that were later identified by an external audit team, the most likely root cause would be inadequate test coverage analysis. This implies that the internal audit team did not thoroughly test or cover all the relevant areas that should have been examined, leading to significant security vulnerabilities being overlooked. This is evidenced by the difference in findings between the two audits. Proper test coverage ensures that all critical areas and potential vulnerabilities are assessed systematically.
B is correct. The fact that it's the same scope actually tells you that the internal team didn't do a proper analysis of what they did/didn't cover on their internal tests.
Can't be B as the question says: " the same scope"
same scope yes, but external team are usually more experienced and capable to find more security weaknesses in the systems.
Respectfully, "more experience" is an assumption... IF they performed under the stated scope the only change-agent would be weaknesses in the area of a non-static environment change controls.
Not A, Not C Maybe B - internal team didn’t do as much as they should have. Maybe D - no change control means no updates
A in my opinion, the baseline that was established previously is no longer secure, as new vulnerabilities have been discovered with this new assessment (weaknesses to me = vulnerability). Likely rested easy after doing their assessment, and didn't continue to review the relevance of the baseline. Shows the importance of frequent vulnerability assessments. They event reported in their initial assessment "that the manufacturing application is rarely updated".
B, because it references controls and not the system itself. I can see how you would assume patching at first glance though, but there's a reason it specifically isn't an option.
"Same scope" means the denominator of the test coverage formula "the number of use cases available" was same for both internal and external auditors. But internal auditors screwed up in the numerator and didnt do adequate number of use cases tested. External auditors did better due care and had more number of use cases tested from the same scope and identified more and severe.
B is correct
Hate the wording of the question. I think they're looking for A. I'd argue what they're looking for is the "First" thing you should consider. It's arguable what the "most important" thing is, since the most important thing changes based on what stage you are in the assessment process.
Sorry - replied to the wrong question.