The most likely reason for executive management to take no further action related to the risk of a denial of service (DoS) attack is that the cost of implementing controls exceeds the potential financial losses. This means that the risk is acceptable or tolerable for the organization, and that the benefits of reducing the risk do not outweigh the costs of applying the controls. This decision is based on a cost-benefit analysis, which is a common technique for evaluating and comparing different risk response options. A cost-benefit analysis considers the following factors:
The estimated impact of the risk, which is the potential loss or damage that the organization may suffer if the risk materializes. The impact can be expressed in quantitative or qualitative terms, such as monetary value, reputation, customer satisfaction, legal liability, etc.
The estimated likelihood of occurrence, which is the probability or frequency that the risk will occur within a given time period. The likelihood can be expressed in numerical or descriptive terms, such as percentage, rating, high, medium, low, etc.
The estimated cost of controls, which is the total amount of resources that the organization needs to invest in order to implement and maintain the controls. The cost can include direct and indirect expenses, such as hardware, software, personnel, training, maintenance, etc.
The estimated benefit of controls, which is the reduction in the impact or likelihood of the risk as a result of implementing the controls. The benefit can be expressed in the same terms as the impact or likelihood, such as monetary value, percentage, rating, etc.
A cost-benefit analysis can be performed using various methods, such as net present value (NPV), return on investment (ROI), internal rate of return (IRR), etc. The general principle is to compare the cost and benefit of each control option, and select the one that provides the highest net benefit or the lowest net cost. A control option is considered feasible and desirable if its benefit exceeds its cost, or if its cost is lower than the impact of the risk.
In this case, executive management has decided to take no further action related to the risk of a DoS attack, which implies that the cost of implementing controls exceeds the potential financial losses. This could be because the impact or likelihood of the risk is low, or because the cost or complexity of the controls is high, or both. For example, the organization may have a robust backup and recovery system, a diversified network infrastructure, a strong customer loyalty, or a low dependency on online services, which reduce the impact or likelihood of a DoS attack. Alternatively, the organization may face technical, financial, or operational challenges in implementing effective controls, such as firewalls, load balancers, traffic filters, or cloud services, which increase the cost or complexity of the controls. Therefore, executive management may have concluded that the risk is acceptable or tolerable, and that taking no further action is the most rational and economical choice.
The other options are not the most likely reasons for executive management to take no further action related to the risk of a DoS attack, as they indicate a lack of proper risk assessment or validation. The risk assessment should define the likelihood of occurrence and the reported vulnerability should be validated, as these are essential steps for identifying and analyzing the risk. Executive management should be aware of the impact potential, as this is a key factor for evaluating and prioritizing the risk. If any of these options were true, executive management would not have enough information or evidence to make an informed and justified decision about the risk response. References =
CISM Review Manual, Chapter 2, pages 67-69
CISM Exam Content Outline | CISM Certification | ISACA, Domain 2, Task 2.2
Information Security Risk Management for CISM® - Pluralsight, Module 2, Section 2.3
CISM: Information Risk Management Part 2 from Skillsoft - NICCS, Section 2.4
Executive management may not take action related to a risk if they have determined that the cost of implementing necessary controls to mitigate the risk exceeds the potential financial losses that the organization may incur if the risk were to materialize. In cases such as this, it is important for the information security team to provide the executive team with thorough cost-benefit analysis that outlines the cost of implementing the controls versus the expected losses from the risk.
