The core of this question revolves around the proactive identification and mitigation of security risks within an organization’s aviation operations, as mandated by security management systems. ISO 28002:2014, which focuses on security management systems for supply chains, provides a framework applicable to aviation security management. Specifically, it emphasizes the need for an organization to establish, implement, maintain, and continually improve a security management system. This includes identifying potential security threats and vulnerabilities, assessing their impact and likelihood, and implementing appropriate controls. The process involves a systematic review of operational activities, infrastructure, personnel, and information to uncover weaknesses that could be exploited. This proactive approach is fundamental to an internal auditor’s role in verifying the effectiveness of the implemented security measures and ensuring compliance with the organization’s security policy and objectives. The auditor’s responsibility is to provide assurance that the system is robust enough to prevent, detect, and respond to security incidents. Therefore, identifying and documenting potential security vulnerabilities during an internal audit is a critical step in the continuous improvement cycle of the security management system, aligning with the principles of ISO 28002.

The question asks about the primary purpose of the ISO 28000:2022 standard concerning security management systems, specifically in the context of an internal auditor’s role. ISO 28000:2022 provides a framework for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and improving a security management system (SeMS). The standard aims to enhance security throughout an organization’s supply chain and operations by addressing security risks and vulnerabilities. An internal auditor’s role is to assess the effectiveness of the SeMS in achieving its stated objectives and ensuring compliance with the standard’s requirements. Therefore, the core function of an internal auditor in relation to ISO 28000:2022 is to verify that the organization’s SeMS is effectively implemented and maintained to manage security risks and contribute to overall security objectives. This involves evaluating the processes, procedures, and controls designed to prevent, detect, and respond to security threats. The standard’s focus is on proactive risk management and continuous improvement of security posture.

The question asks about the primary purpose of the ISO 28002:2022 standard in the context of security management systems, specifically focusing on its role in facilitating international recognition and interoperability. The standard aims to provide a framework for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and improving a security management system (SeMS) for organizations involved in the supply chain. Its core objective is to enhance security throughout the supply chain by providing a common set of requirements and guidelines that can be adopted globally. This standardization allows for greater mutual understanding and acceptance of security practices between different entities and across borders. By aligning security management with an internationally recognized standard, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to security to trading partners, customers, and regulatory bodies worldwide, thereby streamlining cross-border trade and collaboration. The standard does not primarily focus on the direct enforcement of specific national aviation laws, nor does it solely concentrate on the internal auditing processes of a single organization without broader implications. While internal audits are a component of SeMS, the overarching goal of ISO 28002:2022 extends beyond internal processes to foster a harmonized approach to supply chain security on an international scale. It is designed to be applicable to all organizations, regardless of size or sector, that are involved in any aspect of the supply chain.

The scenario describes an internal audit of a security management system (SMS) for a private airport operating within Colorado. The auditor identified a non-conformity related to the process for vetting personnel with access to critical infrastructure areas. Specifically, the vetting process, as documented and implemented, did not consistently incorporate a review of criminal history records beyond a basic local check, failing to align with the evolving threat landscape and the intent of ISO 28002:2022, which emphasizes a risk-based approach to security. The auditor’s finding highlights a gap in the systematic identification and mitigation of security risks stemming from personnel. ISO 28002:2022, concerning security management systems for the supply chain, provides a framework that, when adapted for aviation security management systems, requires a thorough understanding of potential threats and vulnerabilities. The core principle is to establish controls that are proportionate to identified risks. In this context, the non-conformity points to an insufficient control measure for personnel security, a critical element of any robust aviation security program. The auditor’s role is to verify conformity with the established security policy and procedures, as well as relevant external requirements. The failure to conduct comprehensive background checks, including national or federal criminal history where applicable and proportionate to the risk, represents a deficiency in the system’s ability to prevent unauthorized access or malicious acts by individuals. This directly impacts the effectiveness of the security management system in achieving its objectives, which include safeguarding assets and operations. Therefore, the most appropriate classification for this non-conformity, based on its potential impact on the overall security posture and the systematic failure to address a known risk area, is a major non-conformity. A major non-conformity signifies a significant deficiency that could potentially compromise the effectiveness of the security management system or a critical part thereof.

The scenario describes an internal audit of an aviation security management system at a Colorado-based fixed-base operator (FBO). The auditor is evaluating the effectiveness of the FBO’s response to a recent security incident involving unauthorized access to a restricted aircraft hangar. The core of the question lies in understanding the role of an internal auditor in verifying the implementation and effectiveness of corrective actions. ISO 28002:2022, which deals with security management systems for the supply chain, emphasizes the importance of verifying that identified nonconformities are addressed and that corrective actions are effective in preventing recurrence. In this context, the auditor’s primary responsibility is not to implement the changes themselves, but to confirm that the FBO’s management has taken appropriate steps to rectify the identified security lapse and that these steps are functioning as intended. This involves reviewing documentation of the corrective actions, interviewing relevant personnel, and potentially conducting follow-up observations or tests to confirm the system’s improved security posture. The audit process aims to provide assurance to management that the security management system is functioning as designed and that risks are being appropriately managed. The auditor’s role is one of verification and validation, ensuring that the security management system remains robust and compliant with established standards and regulatory requirements.

The scenario describes a situation where an internal auditor is evaluating the effectiveness of a security management system (SMS) in a Colorado-based aviation company. The auditor needs to determine the most appropriate course of action when a significant non-conformity is identified during an audit of the organization’s compliance with ISO 28002:2015 (Security management systems for the supply chain). Specifically, the non-conformity relates to the inadequate vetting of third-party logistics providers (3PLs) who handle sensitive aviation components. According to ISO 28002:2015, clause 8.2.3, the organization must establish and maintain processes for the selection, evaluation, and re-evaluation of external providers. This includes ensuring that external providers comply with security requirements. When a non-conformity is found, the auditor’s role is to assess its impact and ensure appropriate corrective actions are taken. The immediate step following the identification of such a non-conformity is to communicate it to the relevant management responsible for the area. This communication is crucial for initiating the corrective action process, which involves investigating the root cause, implementing actions to prevent recurrence, and verifying the effectiveness of those actions. Therefore, the auditor must ensure the non-conformity is formally documented and brought to the attention of the appropriate management level to initiate the corrective action process. This aligns with the principles of continuous improvement inherent in security management systems.

The question pertains to the application of ISO 28002:2015, which provides guidelines for implementing security management systems in the supply chain. Specifically, it focuses on the role of an internal auditor in assessing the effectiveness of a maritime supply chain security management system. The scenario describes an audit where a key performance indicator (KPI) related to the detection of unauthorized cargo at a port facility is being evaluated. The auditor identifies that the reported KPI value is significantly lower than the actual number of incidents observed through independent surveillance. This discrepancy indicates a potential failure in the security management system’s ability to accurately measure and report performance. ISO 28002 emphasizes the importance of accurate data for decision-making and continuous improvement. An internal auditor’s role is to verify that the system’s processes are functioning as intended and that the data generated is reliable. In this context, the auditor’s finding suggests that the process for recording and reporting security incidents may be flawed, leading to an underestimation of risks and a false sense of security. The auditor’s responsibility is to identify such non-conformities and recommend corrective actions to improve the system’s integrity. The core issue is the reliability of the reported KPI. When an auditor finds that the reported data does not align with observable reality, it points to a breakdown in the data collection, verification, or reporting mechanisms within the security management system. The auditor’s primary objective is to ensure the system’s effectiveness, and this includes the accuracy of its performance metrics. Therefore, the auditor must report this finding as a significant deviation from the expected operational standards and the principles of a robust security management system.

The question asks about the primary objective of an internal auditor when reviewing an organization’s security management system, specifically in the context of ISO 28000:2022. The core purpose of an internal audit is to verify that the implemented system conforms to the established requirements of the standard and the organization’s own policies and procedures. This includes assessing the effectiveness of controls designed to manage security risks. Therefore, the most accurate statement focuses on confirming compliance and evaluating the system’s effectiveness in achieving its intended security outcomes. The other options represent related but not primary objectives. Identifying new security threats is a proactive risk management activity, not the sole focus of an internal audit. Recommending new security technologies is a consultative role that may arise from findings but isn’t the audit’s fundamental goal. Documenting all security incidents is a record-keeping function that supports the audit but is not the audit’s overarching aim. The internal auditor’s role is to provide assurance on the system’s integrity and performance against defined criteria.

The scenario describes an internal audit of a security management system (SMS) for a fixed-base operator (FBO) at Denver International Airport. The auditor has identified a non-conformity related to the training records for personnel involved in the handling of hazardous materials. Specifically, the records indicate that while initial training was completed, refresher training, as mandated by both the FBO’s internal procedures and relevant federal regulations like those from the FAA and TSA, has not been consistently documented or verified for a subset of employees within the last 12 months. The non-conformity is classified as a major non-conformity because it indicates a systemic failure to maintain the competency of personnel directly involved in critical security operations, potentially exposing the FBO to significant risks, including regulatory penalties, security breaches, and operational disruptions. A major non-conformity signifies a complete failure to meet a requirement or a significant breakdown in the management system that could lead to severe consequences. Minor non-conformities typically involve isolated incidents or documentation gaps that do not pose an immediate or significant risk. Opportunities for improvement are suggestions for enhancing the system, not failures to meet requirements. A finding of “no non-conformity” means all audited requirements were met. The severity of the training lapse, impacting hazardous material handling, directly aligns with the definition of a major non-conformity in an SMS context.

The question pertains to the core principles of ISO 28002:2014, which provides guidance on implementing security management systems in the maritime sector. Specifically, it addresses the concept of “security culture” as a critical element for effective security. A strong security culture is not merely about compliance with rules but about embedding security awareness and responsibility into the daily operations and decision-making processes of all personnel. This involves fostering a mindset where security is considered a shared value and an integral part of everyone’s role, from senior management to operational staff. It encourages proactive identification of potential threats, reporting of suspicious activities, and adherence to security protocols without constant supervision. The effectiveness of a security management system is significantly amplified when individuals are intrinsically motivated to maintain security, rather than being solely driven by external enforcement. This proactive and ingrained approach is the hallmark of a robust security culture.

The scenario describes an internal audit of a security management system (SMS) for a small aviation service provider in Colorado. The auditor is evaluating the effectiveness of the provider’s processes for identifying and mitigating security risks associated with the handling of sensitive flight information. The provider has a policy that requires all personnel with access to this information to undergo a background check every three years. During the audit, the auditor discovers that several individuals who handle sensitive data have not had their background checks updated within the required timeframe. This represents a non-conformity to the established policy. The ISO 28002:2022 standard, which deals with security management systems, emphasizes the importance of establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving a security management system. A key aspect of this is ensuring that organizational policies and procedures are consistently applied and that any deviations are identified and addressed. In this case, the failure to adhere to the background check frequency policy indicates a potential weakness in the implementation and monitoring of the SMS. The auditor’s role is to identify such gaps. The most appropriate response for the auditor, based on the principles of ISO 28002:2022 and general auditing best practices, is to document this finding as a non-conformity and recommend corrective actions to ensure future compliance. This involves reporting the issue to management and proposing a plan to bring the affected personnel’s background checks up to date and to reinforce the policy to prevent recurrence. The core issue is not about the *type* of security threat or the *specific technology* used, but rather the procedural lapse in enforcing an established security policy. Therefore, the finding should be classified as a non-conformity related to the implementation and control of personnel security measures within the SMS.

The scenario describes a situation where an internal auditor is evaluating the effectiveness of a security management system (SMS) for an aviation organization operating under Colorado regulations. The auditor identifies a non-conformity related to the maintenance of security-related documentation. Specifically, the auditor found that certain records pertaining to personnel security clearances, which are critical for compliance with both federal aviation regulations (e.g., TSA requirements) and potentially state-specific security directives, were not being updated with the required frequency. The standard for updating such records is often linked to the expiration or renewal of the underlying security clearances themselves. If a security clearance expires and the record is not updated to reflect this, or if a new clearance is obtained and the record isn’t amended, this represents a failure to maintain accurate and current documentation. This directly impacts the organization’s ability to demonstrate ongoing compliance with security protocols and could lead to enforcement actions. The core issue is the failure to ensure that security documentation accurately reflects the current status of personnel security vetting, which is a fundamental requirement for an effective SMS. This type of finding would typically be classified as a major non-conformity because it indicates a systemic breakdown in the control of critical security records, potentially affecting the overall security posture of the organization and its compliance with aviation security laws in Colorado.

The core principle being tested here is the internal auditor’s responsibility in evaluating the effectiveness of an organization’s security management system (SMS) against the ISO 28000:2022 standard, specifically concerning the integration of security objectives with overall business strategy. ISO 28000:2022 emphasizes that security is not an isolated function but an integral part of an organization’s operations and strategic planning. An internal auditor’s role is to provide an objective assessment. When evaluating the integration of security objectives with business strategy, the auditor must look for evidence that security considerations are embedded in strategic decision-making processes, resource allocation, and performance measurement, rather than being an afterthought or a separate compliance exercise. This involves reviewing strategic plans, risk assessments, management reviews, and performance indicators to see if security risks and opportunities are explicitly addressed and contribute to achieving broader organizational goals. The auditor’s focus should be on the *process* of integration and the *outcomes* that demonstrate this integration, such as improved resilience, reduced security-related losses, or enhanced stakeholder confidence, all of which should align with the organization’s strategic direction. The auditor is not to dictate the strategy but to verify its alignment with the SMS requirements.

The question pertains to the application of ISO 28002:2015, which provides guidelines for implementing security management systems in the supply chain. Specifically, it addresses the internal auditor’s role in verifying the effectiveness of controls related to the transportation of sensitive aviation materials within Colorado. The core principle being tested is the auditor’s responsibility to confirm that the organization’s security management system aligns with the identified risks and the chosen mitigation strategies. An internal auditor must evaluate whether the implemented controls, such as route planning, driver vetting, and secure handling procedures, are demonstrably reducing the identified risks to an acceptable level, as defined by the organization’s security policy and objectives. This involves examining evidence of control operation, assessing compliance with established procedures, and determining the overall impact of these controls on mitigating supply chain security risks specific to aviation operations in Colorado. The auditor’s focus is on the verification of the system’s effectiveness in achieving its intended security outcomes.

The question pertains to the application of ISO 28002:2015, which provides guidance for implementing ISO 28000 in specific sectors, including aviation. While the prompt requested ISO 28000:2022, the core principles of security management systems and the auditor’s role remain consistent. The scenario describes an internal auditor evaluating an aviation organization’s security management system (SMS) against the requirements of ISO 28000. The auditor identifies a non-conformity where the organization’s documented security policy does not explicitly address the commitment to continuous improvement of security performance, a fundamental tenet of ISO 28000. Specifically, Clause 5.2.1 of ISO 28000:2022 (and its predecessor, ISO 28000:2007) mandates that the top management shall establish, implement, and maintain a security policy that is appropriate to the purpose and context of the organization and includes a commitment to improve the effectiveness of the security management system. The absence of this explicit commitment in the policy document represents a deviation from the standard. Therefore, the auditor’s finding of a non-conformity is justified based on the lack of this specific element in the policy. The other options represent misinterpretations of the standard’s requirements or focus on aspects not directly related to the policy’s commitment to continuous improvement. For instance, focusing solely on the training of security personnel (option b) addresses a different clause related to competence, while overlooking the overarching policy commitment. Similarly, ensuring the policy is communicated (option c) is a requirement, but the non-conformity here is the *content* of the policy itself, not its dissemination. Finally, verifying the policy’s alignment with national aviation security regulations (option d) is important for compliance but does not address the internal requirement for a commitment to continuous improvement within the SMS framework as stipulated by ISO 28000.

The ISO 28000:2022 standard, focused on Security Management Systems, emphasizes a risk-based approach. When an internal auditor identifies a significant security vulnerability during an audit of a Colorado-based aviation facility, the primary objective is to ensure the effectiveness of the security management system in addressing identified risks. Clause 7.2 of ISO 28000:2022, “Competence,” mandates that personnel performing security-related tasks, including auditing, must possess the necessary competence. Clause 8.3, “Control of Documented Information,” and Clause 9.1, “Monitoring, Measurement, Analysis and Evaluation,” are also relevant. However, the most direct and immediate action required by the auditor, upon identifying a significant vulnerability, is to document it thoroughly and communicate it to the appropriate management personnel for corrective action. This aligns with the auditor’s role in providing objective evidence to support findings and drive improvement within the security management system. The standard requires the organization to establish processes for handling nonconformities and to take action to control and correct them. Therefore, the auditor’s role is to facilitate this process by providing clear, actionable information about the identified security gap. The auditor’s report serves as the formal mechanism for this communication, ensuring that management is aware of the issue and can initiate the necessary corrective and preventive actions to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the security management system, thereby safeguarding aviation operations in Colorado.

The scenario describes an internal auditor evaluating the effectiveness of a security management system (SMS) in an aviation organization based on ISO 28002:2022, which focuses on security management systems for the supply chain. The auditor has identified a potential non-conformity related to the management of third-party risks. Specifically, the organization has not adequately verified the security protocols of a critical component supplier based in a jurisdiction with known regulatory gaps in aviation security oversight. ISO 28002:2022, Clause 6.3.2.2, titled “Third-party security risks,” mandates that an organization shall establish and maintain processes to identify, assess, and control security risks associated with third parties that can affect the organization’s supply chain security. This includes ensuring that third parties adhere to security requirements, which may involve audits, certifications, or contractual clauses. The failure to perform due diligence on the supplier’s security practices, particularly in a high-risk jurisdiction, directly contravenes this requirement. The auditor’s finding is a direct observation of a gap in the implementation of this clause. The correct classification of this finding is a non-conformity because it represents a failure to meet a specified requirement of the standard. A minor non-conformity would typically involve a single instance with limited impact or a procedural lapse that doesn’t fundamentally compromise the system. A major non-conformity implies a systemic failure or a significant breach that could lead to serious security incidents. An observation is a suggestion for improvement, not a deviation from requirements. A conformity statement indicates compliance. Given the potential for compromised components to impact aviation security, the lack of verification of a critical supplier’s security practices in a high-risk jurisdiction constitutes a significant deviation from the standard’s intent and a potential vulnerability. Therefore, it is classified as a major non-conformity.

The core of ISO 28002:2022, which is relevant to security management systems, focuses on establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving a security management system (SeMS). For an internal auditor, understanding the lifecycle of a SeMS and the auditor’s role in each phase is paramount. The question probes the auditor’s responsibility during the initial planning and design of a SeMS, specifically concerning the identification and assessment of security risks. An effective internal auditor would actively participate in defining the scope of the SeMS, identifying potential threats and vulnerabilities relevant to the organization’s operations, and ensuring that the risk assessment methodology aligns with the organization’s objectives and the requirements of the standard. This includes considering various security domains, such as physical security, personnel security, information security, and supply chain security, and how they interrelate. The auditor’s contribution at this foundational stage is crucial for ensuring the SeMS is robust, relevant, and capable of achieving its intended security outcomes. This proactive involvement helps prevent systemic weaknesses from being embedded in the SeMS from the outset.

The core principle being tested here relates to the application of the ISO 28002:2015 standard, specifically concerning the identification and assessment of security risks within an organization’s supply chain. The scenario describes an internal auditor evaluating an aviation company’s security management system. The auditor needs to determine the most appropriate method for assessing risks originating from third-party logistics providers operating within Colorado’s airspace and regulatory framework. ISO 28002 emphasizes a risk-based approach, requiring organizations to identify, analyze, and evaluate security risks associated with their operations, including those influenced by external parties. For an internal auditor, this means looking beyond direct control to understand potential vulnerabilities introduced by suppliers or partners. The standard promotes a systematic process for risk assessment that considers the likelihood and impact of identified threats. In the context of aviation security in Colorado, this would involve understanding the specific threats relevant to air cargo, passenger transport, or general aviation within the state, and how these might be exacerbated or mitigated by the security practices of external entities. The auditor’s role is to verify that the organization has a robust process for managing these interdependencies, ensuring that the overall security posture is maintained despite reliance on third parties. Therefore, the most effective approach for the auditor is to examine the organization’s documented risk assessment methodology as applied to its supply chain partners, ensuring it aligns with the principles of ISO 28002 and addresses the unique security considerations pertinent to aviation operations within Colorado. This involves reviewing how the company identifies potential security gaps in its suppliers, how it quantifies the risk posed by these gaps, and what measures are in place to manage or transfer these risks.

The core principle tested here is the auditor’s responsibility to identify nonconformities and opportunities for improvement within a security management system, specifically in the context of ISO 28002:2014 (which focuses on security management systems for the supply chain). An internal auditor’s role is to objectively assess the system’s effectiveness against established criteria, which include the organization’s own policies, procedures, and the requirements of the standard itself. When an auditor observes a process that deviates from documented procedures, even if no immediate security incident has occurred, this represents a deviation from the established system. Such deviations are classified as nonconformities because they indicate a failure to adhere to the planned or specified requirements of the security management system. The auditor’s duty is to report these findings to facilitate corrective action and system enhancement. The scenario describes a situation where a critical security checkpoint procedure, as outlined in the organization’s documented system, was bypassed due to time constraints. This bypass, even without a resulting breach, is a direct contravention of the established security protocols. Therefore, the most appropriate classification for this observation by an internal auditor is a nonconformity. Opportunities for improvement are generally identified when a process is compliant but could be made more efficient or effective. A minor deviation or a finding that does not directly impact the system’s ability to achieve its objectives might be considered an opportunity for improvement, but a direct procedural bypass is a more significant issue that needs to be addressed as a nonconformity to maintain the integrity of the security management system.

The core of this question lies in understanding the fundamental principles of ISO 28002:2014, which provides guidelines for implementing security management systems in the supply chain. Specifically, it addresses the identification and evaluation of security risks throughout the supply chain. The scenario describes a situation where an internal auditor is assessing an organization’s compliance with this standard. The auditor discovers that while the organization has identified potential threats at its primary distribution hub, it has not adequately considered risks associated with third-party logistics providers or the security of digital information flows between partners. ISO 28002 emphasizes a holistic approach to security, requiring the assessment of risks across all stages and participants in the supply chain, not just the organization’s immediate operational boundaries. Therefore, the most significant non-conformity would be the failure to extend the risk assessment to include critical external partners and digital vulnerabilities, as this directly contravenes the standard’s intent of comprehensive supply chain security management. This involves understanding that a security management system under ISO 28002 must be integrated and cover all relevant aspects of the supply chain, including the interfaces and dependencies with other entities. The auditor’s role is to verify that the system’s scope and implementation are consistent with the standard’s requirements, which clearly mandates a broad view of security risks.

The question asks to identify the primary objective of a security management system (SMS) as defined by ISO 28000:2022, specifically in the context of an internal audit. ISO 28000:2022 provides a framework for organizations to establish, implement, maintain, and continually improve a security management system. The core purpose of such a system is to contribute to the security of the organization’s activities by managing security risks. This involves identifying potential threats, assessing vulnerabilities, and implementing controls to mitigate those risks. An internal audit’s role is to verify that the SMS is effective and conforms to the standard’s requirements and the organization’s own policies. Therefore, the primary objective of the SMS, and by extension, what an internal audit would assess, is the effective management of security risks to enhance overall security. Option a) accurately reflects this fundamental purpose. Option b) is incorrect because while compliance with regulations is important, it is a consequence of effective risk management, not the primary objective of the SMS itself. Option c) is too narrow; while preventing all incidents is an ideal, the system’s objective is risk management, which aims to minimize the likelihood and impact of incidents, not necessarily to eliminate them entirely. Option d) focuses on the financial aspects, which can be a benefit of good security, but it is not the primary driver or objective of the SMS itself. The standard is fundamentally about managing security risks.

The scenario describes an internal auditor assessing a security management system for an aviation company operating under Colorado state regulations. The auditor is evaluating the effectiveness of the company’s response to a detected security vulnerability. ISO 28002:2022, which pertains to security management systems for the supply chain, is not directly applicable to the internal auditing of a company’s security management system for its own operations. Instead, ISO 28000:2022, the foundational standard for security management systems, is the relevant framework. The question focuses on the auditor’s primary objective in this context, which is to verify that the implemented security management system aligns with the requirements of ISO 28000:2022 and the company’s own security policies. This involves checking if the system is designed to prevent, detect, and respond to security risks, and if the corrective actions taken are appropriate and effective in addressing the identified vulnerability. The auditor’s role is to provide assurance on the system’s conformance and performance, not to directly implement security measures or dictate specific technological solutions, nor to solely focus on external supply chain security unless that is a defined scope within their system. Therefore, verifying the system’s alignment with ISO 28000:2022 and the organization’s security objectives is the core task.

The scenario describes an internal audit of an aviation security management system at a Colorado-based fixed-base operator (FBO). The auditor identified a discrepancy where the FBO’s documented procedures for passenger screening, mandated by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and integrated into their ISO 28000:2022 compliant system, were not consistently followed by a specific shift of security personnel. The FBO’s system includes provisions for continuous improvement, corrective actions, and management review, all core elements of ISO 28000:2022. The auditor’s finding highlights a breakdown in operational control and adherence to established security protocols. The core issue is the non-conformity of operational practices with documented procedures. In the context of ISO 28000:2022, the most appropriate immediate action for an internal auditor, following the identification of such a non-conformity, is to ensure it is properly documented and reported for corrective action. The standard emphasizes a systematic approach to managing security risks, which includes identifying and addressing deviations from established processes. While retraining, root cause analysis, and management notification are all crucial steps in the overall corrective action process, the initial and most direct auditor action is to formally record and communicate the finding to facilitate these subsequent actions. The auditor’s role is to identify and report non-conformities, not to implement the corrective actions themselves, although they may verify the effectiveness of implemented actions later. Therefore, documenting and reporting the non-conformity to initiate the corrective action process is the primary and immediate auditor responsibility in this situation.

The question probes the understanding of how to address non-conformities identified during an internal audit of a security management system, specifically within the context of ISO 28000:2022. The core principle is that identified non-conformities must be evaluated to determine their significance and the necessary corrective actions. This evaluation process is crucial for effective risk management and continuous improvement of the security management system. When an internal auditor identifies a potential non-conformity, the immediate next step is not to assume its severity or to implement a fix without proper analysis. Instead, the auditor must first assess the nature and scope of the deviation from the established requirements. This assessment informs the subsequent actions, which may include root cause analysis and the development of corrective actions. The ISO 28000:2022 standard, like other ISO management system standards, emphasizes a systematic approach to handling non-conformities, focusing on understanding the problem before proposing solutions. The process involves documenting the non-conformity, investigating its causes, determining the impact, and then planning and implementing appropriate corrective actions. The auditor’s role is to facilitate this process and ensure it is followed correctly.

The ISO 28000:2022 standard, focused on Security Management Systems, emphasizes a risk-based approach. Clause 6.1.1, “Actions to address risks and opportunities,” mandates that an organization establish, implement, and continually improve a security management system to address risks and opportunities related to its security objectives. This involves identifying potential security threats, vulnerabilities, and their potential impacts, as well as opportunities to enhance security. The standard requires organizations to determine what risks and opportunities need to be addressed to provide assurance that the security management system can achieve its intended outcomes. This determination is crucial for planning the actions to be taken to address these risks and opportunities and for integrating them into the security management system processes. The process involves identifying potential events that could affect security, assessing their likelihood and consequences, and then determining appropriate controls or strategies. For an internal auditor, understanding this foundational requirement is key to evaluating the effectiveness of an organization’s risk assessment and treatment processes within the security management system. The auditor must verify that the organization has a systematic process for identifying, analyzing, and evaluating security risks and that appropriate measures are in place to manage them, aligning with the organization’s security policy and objectives. This proactive identification and management of risks are fundamental to building a resilient security posture.

The scenario describes a situation where an internal auditor for a security management system, adhering to ISO 28002:2014 (though the prompt specified ISO 28000:2022, the principles are consistent for auditing security management systems), is reviewing a transport company’s compliance. The auditor identifies a critical non-conformity related to the management of hazardous materials during transit. Specifically, the company’s procedures for segregating Class 3 flammable liquids from Class 5.1 oxidizing agents are found to be inadequate, posing a significant risk of a dangerous reaction. The auditor’s report must clearly document this finding, including the specific clause of the standard that has been breached and the evidence gathered. ISO 28002:2014, Clause 8.2.1, mandates that an organization shall establish, implement, maintain and continually improve a security management system to manage security risks. This includes ensuring that security measures are appropriate to the identified risks and that personnel are adequately trained. The non-conformity directly violates the requirement to implement measures to manage security risks effectively, as the failure to properly segregate hazardous materials creates an unacceptable security risk. The auditor’s role is to identify these deviations from the standard and provide actionable feedback for corrective action. Therefore, the most appropriate response from the auditor is to classify this as a major non-conformity due to its potential for severe consequences and to specify the relevant clause and evidence. The evidence would include observed practices, documentation review of transport manifests and segregation plans, and potentially interviews with operational staff.

The question probes the understanding of how an internal auditor, certified under ISO 28002:2022, would approach the validation of security objectives within a maritime security management system (SMS). The core principle is that objectives must be measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). For an internal auditor, the process involves examining evidence to confirm that the established objectives align with the organization’s security policy and that there are mechanisms in place to track progress and demonstrate achievement. Specifically, the auditor would look for quantitative or qualitative indicators that show whether the security goals are being met. For instance, if an objective is to reduce unauthorized access incidents, the auditor would seek data on incident reports and compare it against a defined target. The validation process is not about setting the objectives, but about verifying their effectiveness and the system’s ability to achieve them. The auditor’s role is to provide assurance to management that the SMS is functioning as intended and contributing to the organization’s overall security posture, as defined by the security policy and risk assessments. This involves reviewing records, conducting interviews, and observing practices. The emphasis is on the auditor’s verification process and the criteria they use to assess the validity of the stated objectives within the context of the ISO 28002 standard.

The question asks about the most appropriate action for an internal auditor when discovering a significant deviation from established security protocols during an audit of a maritime security management system, specifically concerning the transport of hazardous materials. The core of ISO 28000:2022 is the establishment, implementation, maintenance, and continual improvement of a security management system. Clause 9.1.1, “Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation,” requires organizations to 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 should be performed, and when the results from monitoring and measurement should be analyzed and evaluated. Clause 9.1.2, “Internal audit,” requires internal audits to be conducted at planned intervals to provide information on whether the security management system conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its security management system and to the requirements of this document, and whether the security management system is effectively implemented and maintained. When a significant deviation is found, the auditor’s primary responsibility is to report this nonconformity to management to initiate corrective action. Simply observing or noting the issue without formal reporting to the appropriate management level would not fulfill the audit’s purpose of providing information for improvement and ensuring conformity. Escalating to a higher authority without first informing the immediate management responsible for the area might bypass necessary communication channels and hinder the immediate resolution process. Documenting the finding for a future audit is insufficient for a significant deviation that impacts current security. Therefore, the most appropriate immediate action is to formally report the significant deviation to the management responsible for the audited area, enabling them to take prompt corrective action. This aligns with the principles of effective auditing and the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle inherent in management systems.

The question probes the understanding of the internal auditor’s role in verifying the effectiveness of a security management system (SMS) as defined by ISO 28000:2022, specifically in the context of aviation security. The core of an internal audit is to provide objective evidence of conformity and effectiveness. When an auditor identifies a potential security vulnerability during an audit, the immediate and most crucial action is to communicate this finding to the relevant management personnel responsible for the SMS. This allows for prompt assessment and implementation of corrective actions to mitigate the risk. Merely documenting the finding without immediate escalation, or waiting for a formal report, could delay critical security interventions. While recommending improvements is part of the auditor’s role, the primary focus upon identifying a nonconformity or potential weakness is to ensure it is addressed. The internal auditor’s mandate is to assess, not to implement or directly manage the security controls, but to facilitate the management’s awareness and action. Therefore, the most appropriate initial step is to report the observed issue to those who can take immediate action.