Scenario 10: ProEBankProEBank is an Austrian financial institution known for its comprehensive range of banking...

Scenario 10: ProEBank

ProEBank is an Austrian financial institution known for its comprehensive range of banking services. Headquartered in Vienna, it leaverages the city's advanced technological and financial ecosystem To enhance its security posture, ProEBank has implementied an information security management system (ISMS) based on the ISO/IEC 27001. After a year of having the ISMS in place, the company decided to apply for a certification audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 27001.

To prepare for the audit, the company first informed its employees for the audit and organized training sessions to prepare them. It also prepared documented information in advance, so that the documents would be ready when external auditors asked to review them Additionally, it determined which of its employees have the knowledge to help the external auditors understand and evaluate the processes.

During the planning phase for the audit, ProEBank reviewed the list of assigned auditors provided by the certification body. Upon reviewing the list, ProEBank identified a potential conflict of interest with one of the auditors, who had previously worked for ProEBank's mein competitor in the banking industry To ensure the integrity of the audit process. ProEBank refused to undergo the audit until a completely new audit team was assigned. In response, the certification body acknowledged the conflict of interest and made the necessary adjustments to ensure the impartiality of the audit team

After the resolution of this issue, the audit team assessed whether the ISMS met both the standard's requirements and the company's objectives. During this process, the audit team focused on reviewing documented information.

Three weeks later, the team conducted an on-site visit to the auditee’s location where they aimed to evaluate whether the ISMS conformed to the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001. was effectively implemented, and enabled the auditee to reach its information security objectives. After the on-site visit the team prepared the audit conclusions and notified the auditee that some minor nonconformities had been detected The audit team leader then issued a recommendation for certification.

After receiving the recommendation from the audit team leader, the certification body established a committee to make the decision for certification. The committee included one member from the audit team and two other experts working for the certification body.

After the Stage 2 audit, minor nonconformities were found. Despite this, the audit team leader issued a positive recommendation for certification.

Question:

Is this acceptable?