The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness and conformity of the security management system (SeMS) against the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own objectives. Clause 9.2, “Internal audit,” mandates that organizations conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SeMS conforms to the organization’s requirements for its SeMS and to the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires the SeMS to be effectively implemented and maintained. When an auditor identifies a nonconformity, the primary objective is to determine the root cause and assess the impact on the SeMS’s ability to achieve its intended security outcomes. A minor nonconformity typically indicates a lapse in adherence to a specific procedure or requirement that, while not immediately compromising the overall security posture, suggests a potential weakness that could lead to more significant issues if unaddressed. It implies a deviation from the documented system or the standard, but without evidence of systemic failure or immediate, severe security compromise. The auditor’s role is to document this deviation, its potential implications, and recommend corrective actions to prevent recurrence. The focus is on the systematic improvement of the SeMS.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022, particularly concerning the effectiveness of security controls, lies in verifying that the implemented measures align with the identified security risks and the organization’s security policy. Clause 8.2, “Operational planning and control,” mandates that the organization shall plan, implement, and control the processes needed to meet security requirements and implement actions determined in Clause 6.1. When an auditor assesses the effectiveness of a newly deployed access control system at a logistics hub, they must go beyond simply confirming its installation. The auditor needs to ascertain if the system’s configuration and operational procedures directly mitigate the specific threats and vulnerabilities identified in the organization’s security risk assessment (SRA) for that hub. This involves examining whether the system’s parameters (e.g., access levels, time restrictions, logging capabilities) are set in accordance with the risk treatment decisions made during the SRA process. For instance, if the SRA identified unauthorized access to high-value cargo storage as a critical risk, the auditor would look for evidence that the access control system enforces strict multi-factor authentication and time-bound access for personnel entering that specific zone. Furthermore, the auditor must verify that the operational procedures for managing the system, including user provisioning, de-provisioning, and incident response related to access breaches, are documented, understood by relevant personnel, and consistently applied. This ensures that the control is not just present but actively functioning as intended to reduce the likelihood or impact of security incidents. Therefore, the most effective audit approach is to link the operational control directly back to the risk assessment and the organization’s security objectives.

The core of an effective security management system (SMS) audit, particularly under ISO 28000:2022, lies in verifying the organization’s commitment to continual improvement and its ability to adapt to evolving security risks. Clause 10.3 of ISO 28000:2022, “Continual Improvement,” mandates that the organization shall continually improve the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the SMS. This involves analyzing audit results, performance data, and feedback to identify opportunities for enhancement. When an internal auditor identifies a nonconformity related to the effectiveness of a security control measure, the primary objective is not merely to document the lapse but to ascertain the root cause and ensure that corrective actions are planned and implemented to prevent recurrence and improve the overall security posture. This aligns with the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle inherent in management system standards. The auditor must assess whether the organization has a systematic process for identifying, analyzing, and addressing such issues, thereby demonstrating a commitment to strengthening its security framework. The focus is on the *process* of improvement and the *effectiveness* of the implemented actions in achieving desired security outcomes, rather than just the immediate fix. This proactive approach ensures the SMS remains relevant and robust against emerging threats.

The core principle being tested here relates to the proactive identification and mitigation of security risks within the framework of ISO 28000:2022. Specifically, it delves into the auditor’s role in verifying the effectiveness of the organization’s security risk assessment process, a fundamental requirement of the standard. The standard emphasizes that the organization must determine security risks and opportunities that need to be addressed to give assurance that the security management system can achieve its intended outcomes. This involves not just identifying potential threats and vulnerabilities but also evaluating their likelihood and potential impact, and then determining appropriate controls. An internal auditor’s responsibility is to confirm that this process is systematic, documented, and leads to actionable security measures. The correct approach involves examining the evidence of how identified risks are prioritized based on their potential impact and likelihood, and how these prioritized risks inform the selection and implementation of security controls. This ensures that resources are allocated effectively to address the most significant security concerns. The auditor would look for evidence of a structured methodology for risk evaluation, such as a risk matrix, and how the outputs of this evaluation are integrated into the security plan and operational procedures. The focus is on the *process* of risk assessment and its linkage to control implementation, rather than just the existence of a risk register.

The core principle being tested here is the auditor’s role in verifying the effectiveness of security controls in relation to identified threats and vulnerabilities, specifically within the context of ISO 28000:2022. Clause 8.2.3 of ISO 28000:2022, “Security risk assessment,” mandates that the organization shall determine its security risks by identifying and analyzing security threats and vulnerabilities. An internal auditor’s responsibility is to ensure that this process is conducted thoroughly and that the resulting risk treatment plan directly addresses the identified risks. When an auditor observes that security measures are in place but their efficacy hasn’t been demonstrably linked back to the specific threats or vulnerabilities documented in the risk assessment, it indicates a potential gap in the control effectiveness verification. The auditor must ascertain if the implemented controls are not just present, but are actively mitigating the identified risks to an acceptable level, as per the organization’s risk appetite. This involves examining evidence of testing, monitoring, and performance evaluation of these controls against the established risk criteria. Therefore, the most appropriate auditor action is to request evidence demonstrating the direct correlation between the implemented security measures and the mitigation of specific, identified security risks, thereby validating the control’s purpose and effectiveness. This aligns with the overall objective of an SMS to achieve and maintain security.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify conformity with the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own security management system (SMS). Clause 9.2, “Internal audit,” mandates that the organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SMS and the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires the audit to be effectively implemented and maintained. An internal auditor’s role is to assess the effectiveness of the SMS in achieving its intended security outcomes and to identify opportunities for improvement. This involves examining evidence, interviewing personnel, and evaluating processes against the standard’s clauses and the organization’s documented procedures. The focus is on the *system’s* ability to manage security risks, not just the presence of security measures. Therefore, an audit finding that highlights a lack of documented evidence for the effectiveness of a specific security measure, when that measure is critical to achieving a stated security objective, directly addresses the SMS’s conformity and effectiveness as required by the standard. This aligns with the principle of evidence-based decision-making and the continuous improvement cycle inherent in management systems. The auditor must determine if the implemented controls are achieving their intended purpose and if this achievement is demonstrable through objective evidence. The absence of such evidence, particularly for a critical control, indicates a potential nonconformity with the SMS’s own requirements or the standard’s expectations for a functioning system.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness of the security management system (SMS) in achieving its intended outcomes and to ensure conformity with the standard. Clause 9.2, “Internal audit,” mandates that the organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SMS and to the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires that the results of internal audits are to be reported to relevant management. Furthermore, Clause 9.2.2 outlines the general requirements for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an audit programme, including determining audit criteria, scope, frequency, and methods. The auditor’s role is to objectively assess the evidence gathered against these criteria. When evaluating the effectiveness of corrective actions taken for nonconformities identified in previous audits, the auditor must confirm that the actions have addressed the root cause and that the SMS has not reverted to the previous state of non-conformity. This involves reviewing documentation, interviewing personnel, and observing processes. The focus is on the *sustained* improvement and the prevention of recurrence, which is a fundamental principle of management systems. Therefore, confirming that the corrective actions have effectively eliminated the identified security risks and prevented their reoccurrence, as evidenced by subsequent monitoring and performance data, is the most critical aspect of this audit activity. This directly relates to the overall objective of the SMS, which is to manage security risks and improve security performance.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness and conformity of the security management system (SeMS) against the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own policies and objectives. Clause 9.2, “Internal Audit,” mandates that organizations conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SeMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SeMS and to the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires that the SeMS is effectively implemented and maintained. When an auditor identifies a nonconformity, the primary objective is to determine its root cause and assess its impact on the SeMS’s ability to achieve its intended security outcomes. The auditor must then document the nonconformity, including evidence, and propose corrective actions. The focus is not on immediate remediation by the auditor, but on ensuring the organization has a robust process for addressing identified issues. Therefore, the most appropriate action for the auditor is to document the nonconformity and its potential impact, and to ensure the organization initiates its corrective action process. This aligns with the auditor’s role of verification and reporting, enabling the organization to manage its own system. The other options represent either overstepping the auditor’s role (directing immediate fixes), a passive approach that doesn’t ensure action (simply noting it), or a premature judgment of effectiveness before the organization has had a chance to respond. The auditor’s responsibility is to facilitate the identification and reporting of issues so that the organization can address them through its established management system processes.

The core of an internal auditor’s role in relation to ISO 28000:2022 is to verify conformity and effectiveness. When assessing the implementation of security measures, particularly those related to the identification and evaluation of security risks (Clause 6.1.2), an auditor must look beyond mere documentation. The standard emphasizes a proactive approach to risk management. Therefore, an auditor would need to confirm that the organization has not only identified potential security threats and vulnerabilities but has also analyzed their potential impact and likelihood. This analysis should then inform the selection and implementation of appropriate security controls. The auditor’s task is to ensure that the process for risk assessment and treatment is robust, documented, and consistently applied. This involves examining the evidence of risk identification, the methodology used for evaluation, the rationale behind the chosen controls, and the ongoing monitoring of their effectiveness. A key aspect is verifying that the controls are integrated into the organization’s operations and are not merely superficial additions. The auditor’s findings should reflect the degree to which the security management system is achieving its intended outcomes in mitigating identified risks.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022, particularly concerning the effectiveness of security measures, lies in verifying that the organization’s security objectives are being met and that the security management system (SMS) is functioning as intended. Clause 9.1, “Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation,” of ISO 28000:2022 mandates that the organization shall determine what needs to be monitored and measured, the methods for monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation needed to ensure the validity of the results, when the monitoring and measurement shall be performed, and when the results from monitoring and measurement shall be analyzed and evaluated. An internal auditor’s role is to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of these processes. Therefore, when evaluating the effectiveness of security controls against identified threats, the auditor must look for evidence that the organization has established and is consistently applying a systematic approach to measure the performance of these controls. This involves reviewing documented procedures for monitoring, analyzing incident data, conducting vulnerability assessments, and evaluating the impact of security measures on operational efficiency and security posture. The auditor needs to confirm that the metrics used are relevant to the security objectives and that the analysis of these metrics leads to informed decisions for improvement, aligning with the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle inherent in management system standards. The absence of a defined process for evaluating the performance of specific security measures, such as access control systems or cargo screening procedures, against their intended security outcomes would indicate a nonconformity. The auditor’s focus is on the *process* of evaluation and the *evidence* of its application, not just the existence of controls.

The core principle being tested here is the auditor’s role in verifying the effectiveness of security controls in relation to identified threats and vulnerabilities, specifically within the context of ISO 28000:2022. The standard emphasizes a risk-based approach, requiring organizations to establish, implement, maintain, and continually improve a security management system (SMS). An internal auditor’s primary function is to assess conformity and effectiveness. When an auditor identifies a security control that is not demonstrably linked to mitigating a specific, documented threat or vulnerability, it suggests a potential gap in the SMS’s risk treatment strategy. The control might be in place, but its purpose and efficacy within the established risk framework are questionable. This directly impacts the SMS’s ability to achieve its intended security objectives. Therefore, the most appropriate auditor action is to document this observation as a nonconformity, as it indicates a failure to adequately integrate controls with the risk assessment and treatment processes mandated by the standard. This observation highlights a potential weakness in the organization’s ability to demonstrate that its security measures are purposeful and effective in managing identified risks, rather than merely being present. The auditor’s role is to provide assurance that the SMS is functioning as intended and is capable of achieving security objectives, which includes ensuring that controls are not arbitrary but are a direct response to identified security risks.

The core of an effective internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 lies in verifying the organization’s commitment to continual improvement of its security management system (SMS). Clause 10.3, “Continual Improvement,” mandates that the organization shall continually improve the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the SMS. This involves evaluating audit results, management review outcomes, corrective actions, and changes in the security environment. An internal auditor’s role is to assess whether these mechanisms are actively functioning and leading to demonstrable enhancements in security performance and the achievement of security objectives. Specifically, an auditor would look for evidence that identified nonconformities from previous audits have been addressed with effective corrective actions, that lessons learned from security incidents are being integrated into risk assessments and operational procedures, and that management is actively using performance data to drive strategic security decisions. The absence of proactive measures to address emerging threats or the mere documentation of reviews without subsequent action would indicate a deficiency in the SMS’s commitment to improvement. Therefore, the most critical aspect an internal auditor must verify is the organization’s systematic approach to leveraging audit findings, performance data, and feedback loops to enhance the overall security posture and the SMS’s effectiveness in achieving its intended security outcomes.

The core principle being tested here is the auditor’s responsibility in verifying the effectiveness of security controls against identified threats and vulnerabilities, specifically within the context of ISO 28000:2022. Clause 8.2.2 of ISO 28000:2022, “Operational planning and control,” mandates that the organization shall establish, implement, operate and maintain processes needed to meet security requirements for the prevention of security incidents. An internal auditor’s role is to assess whether these processes are effectively implemented and achieving their intended outcomes. When an auditor identifies a potential gap where a specific security control, designed to mitigate a known threat (e.g., unauthorized access to a sensitive cargo manifest), is not consistently applied or its effectiveness is questionable, the auditor must ensure that the organization has a mechanism to address this. This involves not just noting the non-conformity but also verifying that the organization has a process for evaluating the impact of this control deficiency and implementing corrective actions. The most appropriate action for the auditor is to confirm that the organization is actively assessing the residual risk and has a plan to enhance the control or implement an alternative mitigation strategy. This aligns with the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle inherent in management systems and the standard’s emphasis on continual improvement. The auditor’s objective is to provide assurance that the security management system is functioning as intended and is capable of achieving its security objectives, which includes managing risks to an acceptable level. Therefore, verifying the organization’s process for evaluating the effectiveness of controls and addressing identified weaknesses is paramount.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness of the security management system (SMS) in achieving its intended outcomes. Clause 9.1, “Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation,” is crucial for this. Specifically, it requires the organization to determine what needs to be monitored and measured, the methods for monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation needed to ensure valid results, when the monitoring and measurement should be performed, and when the results should be analyzed and evaluated. An internal auditor’s role is to assess whether these processes are in place and functioning as intended. The question probes the auditor’s understanding of how to evaluate the *effectiveness* of the SMS, not just its existence. Effectiveness is demonstrated by achieving security objectives and preventing or mitigating security risks. Therefore, an auditor must look for evidence that the monitoring and measurement activities directly contribute to understanding the performance of the SMS against its stated security objectives and the identification of opportunities for improvement. This involves examining how the data collected from monitoring (e.g., incident reports, access control logs, threat intelligence) is analyzed and used to inform decisions and drive corrective actions. The focus is on the *outcome* of the monitoring and measurement process – its contribution to the overall security posture and the continual improvement of the SMS. Other options, while related to SMS activities, do not directly address the auditor’s primary responsibility in evaluating the *effectiveness* of the system’s performance through its monitoring and measurement processes. For instance, simply documenting procedures (option b) is a compliance check, not an effectiveness evaluation. Identifying potential security vulnerabilities (option c) is a risk assessment activity, which is input to the SMS but not the direct evaluation of the SMS’s performance measurement. Ensuring compliance with specific transport regulations (option d) is important but is only one aspect of the broader security objectives an SMS aims to achieve.

The core of an effective internal audit for an ISO 28000:2022 compliant security management system (SeMS) lies in verifying the integration and practical application of its requirements within the organization’s operational context. Specifically, Clause 6.1.1, “Actions to address risks and opportunities,” mandates that the organization shall plan actions to address these risks and opportunities. This involves determining what will be done, what resources will be required, who will be responsible, when it will be completed, and how the results will be evaluated. When an auditor encounters a situation where identified security risks have been documented, but the subsequent planning and implementation of mitigation or response actions are absent or incomplete, it signifies a direct non-conformity with this fundamental clause. The auditor’s role is to assess whether the organization has established processes to translate risk identification into concrete, actionable security measures. The absence of documented plans for addressing identified risks, such as those related to cargo theft at a logistics hub or unauthorized access to sensitive data at a financial institution, means the SeMS is not effectively managing its security posture as intended by the standard. This gap directly impacts the system’s ability to achieve its intended security outcomes and fulfill its policy commitments. Therefore, the most critical finding for an internal auditor in such a scenario is the lack of documented and implemented actions to address identified security risks, as this directly contravenes the proactive and systematic approach required by ISO 28000:2022.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness and conformity of the security management system (SMS) against the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own security policy and objectives. Clause 9.2, “Internal Audit,” mandates that the organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SMS and to the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires that the results of internal audits are reported to relevant management. When an auditor identifies a non-conformity, the primary responsibility is to document it accurately and objectively, detailing the evidence found. The auditor’s role is not to implement corrective actions or to dictate solutions, but to report findings that enable the organization to take appropriate action. Therefore, the most appropriate action for the internal auditor, upon identifying a potential breach of security protocols during an audit of a logistics company’s container tracking system, is to document the specific deviation from the established procedure and the evidence supporting this observation. This documentation forms the basis for the organization to initiate its corrective action process as outlined in Clause 10.2, “Nonconformity and Corrective Action.” The auditor’s report should be factual, allowing the management responsible for the process to investigate the root cause and implement effective remedies.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022, particularly concerning the integration of security management with other management systems, lies in verifying the organization’s commitment to continual improvement and the effective implementation of its security policy and objectives. Clause 10.3, “Continual Improvement,” mandates that the organization shall continually improve the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the security management system. This involves evaluating audit results, performance data, corrective actions, and management review outcomes to identify opportunities for enhancement. When an internal auditor assesses the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to nonconformities identified during previous audits, they must verify that these actions have addressed the root cause and prevented recurrence. This verification process is not merely about checking if a task was completed but rather confirming that the *intended outcome* of the corrective action has been achieved, leading to a tangible improvement in security posture or management system performance. For instance, if a previous audit found inadequate screening of personnel accessing sensitive areas, a corrective action might involve implementing a new background check procedure. The auditor’s verification would then focus on whether this new procedure is consistently applied, if it effectively identifies potential security risks, and if the overall rate of security incidents related to unauthorized access has decreased. This goes beyond simply checking a box; it requires a deeper analysis of the system’s response to identified weaknesses and its capacity to evolve. Therefore, the most critical aspect of this verification is the demonstration of tangible improvements in the security management system’s performance and effectiveness, directly linked to the corrective actions implemented.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness of the security management system (SMS) in achieving its intended outcomes and conforming to the standard’s requirements. Clause 9.2, “Internal audit,” mandates that the organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SMS and the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires that the audits provide information on whether the SMS is effectively implemented and maintained. When assessing the effectiveness of an internal audit program, an auditor must look beyond mere compliance with the audit schedule. They must evaluate the quality of the audit findings, the auditor’s competence, the reporting process, and, crucially, the follow-up actions taken by management to address identified nonconformities and opportunities for improvement. A robust internal audit program contributes to the continual improvement of the SMS. Therefore, the most significant indicator of an effective internal audit program is the demonstrable evidence of corrective actions being implemented and their subsequent impact on enhancing security performance and mitigating identified risks. This aligns with the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle inherent in ISO management system standards. The audit’s true value lies not just in identifying issues, but in driving tangible improvements.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness and conformity of the security management system (SeMS) against the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own policies and objectives. Clause 9.2, “Internal audit,” mandates that organizations conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SeMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SeMS and to the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires that the SeMS is effectively implemented and maintained. When an auditor identifies a nonconformity, the primary objective is to determine its root cause and assess its impact on the SeMS’s ability to achieve its intended security outcomes. The auditor must then evaluate the adequacy of the proposed corrective actions to prevent recurrence. This involves understanding the systemic issues that led to the nonconformity, not just addressing the immediate symptom. For instance, if a security procedure for cargo screening is found to be inconsistently applied, an effective corrective action would not simply be to re-train the current staff, but to investigate why the inconsistency occurred (e.g., lack of clear instructions, inadequate supervision, insufficient resources) and implement measures to address that underlying cause. This might involve revising the procedure, enhancing supervisory oversight, or providing ongoing competency assessments. Therefore, the auditor’s focus should be on the thoroughness of the root cause analysis and the robustness of the corrective actions designed to prevent recurrence, ensuring the SeMS remains effective.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify conformity with the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own security policy and objectives. Clause 9.2, “Internal audit,” mandates that the organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SMS conforms to the organization’s requirements for the SMS and the requirements of this document, and whether the SMS is effectively implemented and maintained. When assessing the effectiveness of corrective actions, an auditor must look beyond mere implementation. The standard, particularly in Clause 10.2, “Nonconformity and corrective action,” requires that the organization evaluate the need for action to ensure that nonconformities do not recur. This evaluation involves reviewing the effectiveness of any taken corrective action. Therefore, an auditor’s focus during an internal audit, when reviewing past nonconformities and their corrective actions, should be on evidence demonstrating that the root cause has been addressed and that the risk of recurrence has been mitigated. This involves examining the implemented actions, any subsequent monitoring or verification activities, and the overall impact on the security management system’s performance. Simply documenting that an action was taken is insufficient; the auditor must seek evidence of the action’s success in preventing recurrence.

The core of an effective internal audit for ISO 28000:2022, particularly concerning the integration of security management with other management systems, lies in verifying the organization’s commitment to a holistic and risk-based approach. Clause 4.1, “Understanding the organization and its context,” mandates that the organization determine external and internal issues relevant to its purpose and its ability to achieve the intended outcome(s) of its security management system (SMS). This includes understanding the security landscape, regulatory environment, and stakeholder expectations. Clause 4.2, “Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties,” requires identifying relevant interested parties and their security-related requirements. When an auditor assesses the integration of the SMS with, for example, a quality management system (QMS) or an environmental management system (EMS), they must look for evidence that security considerations are embedded within the processes and decision-making of these other systems, rather than being treated as a separate, siloed function. This involves examining how security risks are identified and managed in relation to quality objectives, or how security measures might impact environmental performance, and vice versa. The auditor needs to confirm that the organization has established processes to identify and address potential conflicts or synergies between different management system requirements and objectives. This ensures that the SMS contributes to the overall effectiveness of the organization’s operations and strategic goals, as required by the standard’s emphasis on integration and the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. The most comprehensive approach for an internal auditor to verify this integration is to assess the documented procedures and evidence of cross-functional risk assessments and the incorporation of security criteria into the planning and operational controls of other management systems. This demonstrates a mature and integrated approach to security management.

The core principle being tested here is the auditor’s responsibility in verifying the effectiveness of security controls against identified threats and vulnerabilities, particularly in the context of ISO 28000:2022. The standard emphasizes a risk-based approach. When an internal auditor reviews the effectiveness of a newly implemented access control system designed to mitigate the risk of unauthorized personnel entering sensitive areas, they must go beyond simply confirming its presence. The auditor needs to ascertain that the control is functioning as intended and demonstrably reduces the likelihood or impact of the specific threat it was designed to address. This involves examining evidence of the control’s performance, such as logs of access attempts (both successful and denied), incident reports related to unauthorized access before and after implementation, and potentially conducting walk-throughs or simulations to observe the control in action. The auditor’s role is to provide assurance that the security management system is achieving its objectives, which includes the effective implementation and operation of controls. Therefore, verifying that the control is actively preventing unauthorized access, rather than just being installed, is paramount. This aligns with the standard’s requirement for continual improvement and the verification of the system’s ability to protect assets and operations.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness and conformity of the security management system (SMS) against the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own security policy and objectives. Clause 9.2, “Internal audit,” mandates that the organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SMS and to the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires that the results of internal audits are reported to relevant management. When an auditor identifies a nonconformity, the primary objective is to determine if it affects the ability of the SMS to achieve its intended security outcomes. This involves assessing the scope and impact of the deviation. A minor nonconformity might be a procedural lapse with limited immediate impact, whereas a major nonconformity suggests a significant breakdown in controls or a systemic issue that could compromise overall security objectives. The auditor’s role is to document these findings objectively, assess their severity, and recommend corrective actions. The focus is on evidence-based findings that demonstrate whether the system is operating as intended and achieving its security goals, rather than simply listing observations. The auditor must consider the context of the nonconformity within the broader security framework and its potential to lead to future security incidents or breaches. Therefore, identifying a deviation that directly undermines the achievement of a stated security objective, such as preventing unauthorized access to a critical asset, would be considered a significant finding requiring immediate attention and corrective action. The auditor’s report should clearly articulate the evidence, the clause of the standard or internal procedure violated, and the potential impact on the organization’s security posture.

The core of this question lies in understanding the iterative nature of risk management within ISO 28000:2022, specifically concerning the review and adaptation of security measures. Clause 6.1.3, “Actions to address risks and opportunities,” mandates that an organization shall plan actions to address its security risks and opportunities. This involves integrating these actions into the security management system and evaluating their effectiveness. When an internal auditor identifies a discrepancy between the documented security measures for a specific threat (e.g., unauthorized access to sensitive cargo manifests) and the observed operational practices (e.g., physical access controls not consistently enforced), the auditor’s role is to assess conformity with the standard. The standard requires that identified risks are managed through appropriate controls. If controls are not being applied as intended, the risk remains unmitigated, or at least inadequately mitigated. Therefore, the auditor must determine if the existing documented controls are still appropriate and effective, or if they need revision to address the reality of the situation. This leads to the need for a review of the risk assessment and the subsequent security measures. The auditor’s finding would prompt a re-evaluation of the risk and the suitability of the current controls. The most direct and appropriate action for the auditor to recommend, based on the standard’s principles, is to ensure that the security measures are reviewed and potentially updated to align with the identified operational gaps and the evolving threat landscape. This aligns with the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle inherent in management systems, where non-conformities trigger a review and corrective action. The auditor’s role is to facilitate this process by highlighting the gap.

The core of an effective internal audit for an ISO 28000:2022 SMS lies in verifying the organization’s commitment to continual improvement and the integration of security considerations into its overall business strategy. Clause 10.3 of ISO 28000:2022, “Continual Improvement,” mandates that the organization shall continually improve the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the security management system. This involves analyzing audit results, evaluating performance data, and implementing corrective actions. When assessing the effectiveness of corrective actions, an auditor must look beyond mere closure of non-conformities. The true measure of effectiveness is whether the root cause has been addressed and if recurrence has been prevented, thereby enhancing the overall security posture. This requires the auditor to examine evidence of systemic changes, updated procedures, retraining of personnel, and improved security controls that directly link back to the identified issue. Simply documenting that a corrective action was taken is insufficient; the auditor must verify its impact on the SMS and the organization’s security objectives. Therefore, the most critical aspect of an internal audit concerning corrective actions is to determine if the actions taken have demonstrably led to an enhanced security posture and a more robust SMS, aligning with the standard’s emphasis on proactive risk management and continuous enhancement of security performance.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness of the security management system (SeMS) in achieving its intended outcomes and to ensure compliance with the standard’s requirements. Clause 9.2, “Internal audit,” mandates that the organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SeMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SeMS and to the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires audits to determine whether the SeMS is effectively implemented and maintained. When an auditor identifies a nonconformity, the primary objective is to determine its root cause and the extent of its impact. This involves gathering objective evidence through interviews, observation, and document review. The auditor must then assess whether the organization’s corrective action process, as defined in Clause 10.2, “Nonconformity and corrective action,” is being followed. This process includes evaluating the nonconformity, determining the causes, investigating if similar nonconformities exist or could potentially occur, implementing corrective actions, and reviewing the effectiveness of these actions. Therefore, the most appropriate action for an internal auditor upon identifying a significant nonconformity is to document it thoroughly, including the evidence, and to ensure that the organization initiates its corrective action process to address the root cause and prevent recurrence. This aligns with the audit objective of assessing the effectiveness of the SeMS and its continuous improvement. The other options represent either premature conclusions about the system’s overall failure without proper root cause analysis, or actions that fall outside the scope of an internal auditor’s immediate responsibilities during the audit itself (e.g., directly implementing corrective actions). The focus remains on verification and reporting to facilitate the organization’s own improvement cycle.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness and conformity of the security management system (SMS) against the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own security policy and objectives. Clause 9.2, “Internal audit,” mandates that the organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SMS and the requirements of ISO 28000:2022, and whether the SMS is effectively implemented and maintained. An auditor’s role is to gather objective evidence. When assessing the effectiveness of corrective actions taken for non-conformities identified in previous audits, the auditor must verify that the root cause has been addressed and that the corrective action has prevented recurrence. This involves reviewing the original non-conformity report, the documented corrective action plan, evidence of implementation, and a follow-up assessment of the situation to confirm the issue is resolved and will not reappear. Simply documenting that a corrective action was *planned* or *initiated* is insufficient; the audit must confirm *completion* and *effectiveness*. Therefore, the most appropriate focus for the auditor is to seek evidence that the implemented corrective actions have demonstrably resolved the identified security vulnerability and prevented its recurrence, aligning with the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle inherent in management systems. This requires examining records of the corrective action’s implementation, subsequent monitoring data, and potentially re-testing or re-evaluating the affected process or control.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness and conformity of the security management system (SeMS) against the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own policies and objectives. Clause 9.2, “Internal Audit,” mandates that organizations conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SeMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SeMS and to the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires that the SeMS is effectively implemented and maintained. When an auditor identifies a nonconformity, the primary objective is to determine its root cause and the extent of its impact. This leads to the need for corrective action. Therefore, the most appropriate action for an internal auditor, upon identifying a significant deviation from the SeMS requirements that could compromise security objectives, is to document the nonconformity and initiate the process for corrective action. This involves identifying the root cause, implementing actions to prevent recurrence, and verifying the effectiveness of those actions. The other options, while potentially part of a broader audit process or follow-up, are not the immediate and direct consequence of identifying a nonconformity during the audit itself. For instance, recommending a review of the entire SeMS might be a broader strategic suggestion, but the immediate need is to address the specific nonconformity. Similarly, simply reporting the finding without initiating the corrective action process misses a crucial step in ensuring system improvement. Escalating to external regulatory bodies is only done under specific circumstances defined by law or contractual obligations, not as a standard audit procedure for internal nonconformities. The focus of an internal audit is on the organization’s self-improvement and adherence to its SeMS.

The core of an internal audit for ISO 28000:2022 is to verify the effectiveness and conformity of the security management system (SeMS) against the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own policies and objectives. Clause 9.2, “Internal Audit,” mandates that organizations conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the SeMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its SeMS and to the requirements of ISO 28000:2022. It also requires that the SeMS is effectively implemented and maintained. An internal auditor’s role is to assess the *actual* performance and adherence, not just the documented procedures. Therefore, when evaluating the effectiveness of the SeMS, the auditor must look beyond the existence of documented procedures and verify that these procedures are being followed in practice and are achieving the intended security outcomes. This involves examining evidence of operational security controls, reviewing records of security incidents and their resolution, assessing the competence of security personnel, and confirming that security objectives are being met. The focus is on the *demonstrated* capability of the SeMS to manage security risks and achieve security performance targets. The other options represent either a limited scope (only documented procedures), an external perspective (customer feedback, which is relevant but not the primary focus of an internal audit for SeMS effectiveness), or a future-oriented planning activity rather than an assessment of current system performance. The internal auditor’s primary responsibility is to provide an objective assessment of the SeMS’s current state of conformity and effectiveness.

The core principle being tested here is the auditor’s role in verifying the effectiveness of security controls in relation to identified threats and vulnerabilities, specifically within the context of ISO 28000:2022. The standard emphasizes a risk-based approach. Clause 6.1.2, “Hazard and risk assessment,” requires the organization to establish a process for the identification, analysis, and evaluation of security risks. An internal auditor’s primary function is to assess conformity with the standard and the organization’s own documented processes. Therefore, when reviewing the effectiveness of a newly implemented physical security measure, such as enhanced access control at a critical facility, the auditor must verify that this measure directly addresses a previously identified security risk or vulnerability. This involves examining the documented risk assessment, the rationale for selecting this specific control, and evidence of its operational effectiveness in mitigating the targeted risk. Simply confirming the existence or proper installation of the control is insufficient; the audit must ascertain its contribution to reducing the likelihood or impact of a specific security threat. The auditor would look for evidence linking the control to the risk register, performance metrics demonstrating its impact on security incidents related to that risk, and feedback from relevant personnel on its efficacy. The other options represent incomplete or misdirected audit activities. Confirming compliance with general security awareness training, while important, does not directly validate the effectiveness of a specific physical control. Reviewing the organization’s emergency response plan is a separate audit objective, though it may be informed by risk assessments. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of the control, while a business consideration, is not the primary focus of an internal audit for conformity with ISO 28000:2022, which prioritizes security risk reduction.