Justifying Security Investments for Critical Applications
Short answer
C Present a cost-benefit analysis showing implementation expenses fall below potential downtime losses to secure executive funding.
Question
Key Takeaways
This question tests executive communication and business alignment, with the common trap being the selection of risk tolerance over measurable ROI.
This CISM scenario evaluates how to effectively pitch security controls to executives. Community consensus emphasizes that financial justification outweighs compliance or anecdotal triggers.
Common mistake: Option D is frequently selected because it sounds governance-aligned, but simply meeting risk tolerance does not inherently justify the capital expenditure required for new infrastructure.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Senior management approves budgets based on tangible business value and financial protection. Demonstrating that implementation costs are lower than the potential financial impact of downtime directly ties the security control to organizational resilience and ROI. This aligns with ISACA’s emphasis on framing security initiatives as business enablers rather than pure technical requirements.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A focuses on scalability, which is secondary to immediate risk mitigation for a critical asset. Option B relies on external events that do not account for internal probability or specific business impact. Option D describes an acceptable risk state rather than a proactive investment trigger, making it insufficient for securing new funding.
Community Comment Notes
Users consistently validate option C by highlighting that companies fund projects when they see clear financial returns [Comment 1]. One top comment notes that risk tolerance alone rarely motivates spending, whereas a direct cost-versus-loss comparison provides the executive urgency needed for approval [Comment 4]. Another user points out that probability should be factored into the impact calculation, reinforcing the need for quantitative risk assessment [Comment 3].
Official Reference
- https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/past-issues/2019/volume-5/security-governance-and-strategy
- https://www.isaca.org/credentialing/cism
These links open the official vendor documentation in a new tab.
Exam Strategy
Always translate technical security needs into financial or operational business terms when targeting executive audiences. Quantify risks using Annualized Loss Expectancy (ALE) or comparable cost-benefit metrics to make the business case undeniable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is risk tolerance (D) not enough to justify a new monitoring system?
How should I calculate impact for a critical application business case?
Community Votes
75% of anonymous learners picked answer C. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Discussion 4 contributions
Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors.
From public community threads 4
-
david124 👍 3 Answered Cc all the way, d is more of a risk assessment , just because you can tolerate a solution, dont mean its free. it costs money, no company will spend money on a solution because they can "tolerate" it. C on the other hands is telling you hey, this app would cost us 10 dollars if breached, but it only costs 2 dollars to mitigate it. just my two cents
-
ServerBrain 👍 1 Answered DD. The solution is within the organization's risk tolerance.
-
RunAmok113 👍 1 Answered DC doesn't take into consideration probability.
-
bronay 👍 3 Answered CC. Cost
Reader comments & corrections
No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Related Analysis
Practice All CISM Questions
Access 400 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full CISM Practice Test →