Lesson map
Lesson 04 published. Map, example, EX016.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["4.1 The process"]
N2["4.2 Appetite"]
N3["4.3 Treatment decisions"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX016"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["4.1 The process"]
N2["4.2 Appetite"]
N3["4.3 Treatment decisions"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX016"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[4.1 The process]
|
v
[4.2 Appetite]
|
v
[4.3 Treatment decisions]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX016]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) run a risk assessment using an established process; (2) link risks to appetite; (3) record treatment decisions.
4.1 The process
Lena learns the risk process described in ISO 31000:2018 and applied to information security in ISO/IEC 27005:2022: establish context, identify risks, analyse and evaluate them, treat them, and monitor and review. She runs an assessment for Marston's mobile banking app with the product owner, IT security and fraud teams. They identify risks such as account takeover, fraudulent payments to new payees and app outages, each described with causes and consequences. Writing each risk as a cause leading to a consequence, such as stolen passwords leading to fraudulent payments to new payees, makes treatments easier to target.
4.2 Appetite
Marston's board has stated a low appetite for member financial loss from fraud and a moderate appetite for short service outages. Lena compares each risk with appetite. Account takeover leading to member losses is above appetite and must be treated. Short app outages fall within appetite if recovered within four hours. She learns that appetite turns analysis into decisions: it tells the organisation which risks need action and which can be accepted. Because the four-hour recovery is the threshold, Marston must also be able to show that it actually recovers within four hours.
4.3 Treatment decisions
For account takeover, the team chooses stronger authentication for new payees and transaction monitoring. The product owner agrees to own the treatment with a target date. For outages, the team accepts the current recovery capability and documents the acceptance. Lena records each decision with its owner, date and reasons. She learns that recorded decisions show regulators and auditors that risks were considered and managed deliberately. Mr. Reyes notes that the documented outage acceptance should name the product owner and be revisited if outages begin to exceed four hours.
Worked example
Lena runs a mobile app risk assessment, compares risks with appetite and records treatment and acceptance decisions.
Synthetic case. Risks and appetite are synthetic; ISO 31000:2018 and ISO/IEC 27005:2022 are real.
Errors and limits
Workshops depend on attendees. Appetite statements can be vague.
Exercises
- EX016 — Process steps. Name the main steps of the risk process.
Show marking criteria
Rubric: 3 = context, identify, analyse, evaluate, treat, monitor;; 2 = steps;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none. - EX017 — Above appetite. Which risk was above appetite?
Show marking criteria
Rubric: 3 = account takeover leading to member losses;; 2 = takeover;; 1 = outages;; 0 = none. - EX018 — Outage tolerance. When are app outages within appetite?
Show marking criteria
Rubric: 3 = if recovered within four hours;; 2 = 4 hours;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none. - EX019 — Takeover treatment. What treatments were chosen for account takeover?
Show marking criteria
Rubric: 3 = stronger new-payee authentication and transaction monitoring;; 2 = two;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none. - EX020 — Decision records. Why record treatment decisions?
Show marking criteria
Rubric: 3 = to show risks were managed deliberately;; 2 = evidence;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
An established process linked to appetite turns risk analysis into recorded decisions.
Continue studying — chapter 04 of 12
← Chapter 03 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 05 (draft) →