Episode 14: Policies and Standards
Welcome to The Bare Metal Cyber CRISC Prepcast. This series helps you prepare for the exam with focused explanations and practical context.
Policies are not just documents—they are strategic instruments. At their core, policies translate the intent of executives and governance bodies into clear organizational rules. These rules are formal, reviewed, and approved at the highest levels. They are not created informally or ad hoc, and they apply organization-wide. A good policy does not just exist. It is enforceable, clear in language, and directly aligned with strategic objectives. That alignment ensures that policies support the broader mission of the organization and reinforce consistency across business units. Policies also drive compliance by establishing expectations for controls, behavior, and decision-making. Without them, accountability is difficult to assign or enforce. On the CRISC exam, expect to see scenarios where the absence of a policy—or a poorly written or outdated one—leads to control failure or risk exposure. The best answer will often involve identifying or correcting a policy-level issue, rather than modifying a technical process.
Effective policies share specific characteristics that distinguish them from vague guidelines. They are high-level documents, but they are not ambiguous. A strong policy states what must be done—it does not detail how to do it, but it leaves no doubt about intent. These documents are formally approved by governing authorities such as boards of directors or executive leadership. Policies must also be reviewed and updated regularly. Risk environments evolve, and a policy that was accurate two years ago may now be obsolete. That’s why governance processes include scheduled reviews or reviews triggered by incidents or regulatory changes. Distribution matters too. Policies must be communicated to everyone who needs to know them—not just posted somewhere and forgotten. And finally, effective policies include consequences for violations. Without clear consequences, policies may be viewed as optional. On the CRISC exam, questions may test whether a control failure was caused by policy ambiguity, outdated content, or a lack of enforcement. Clarity, approval, review, and communication are the pillars of policy effectiveness.
Once a policy sets the direction, standards act as the bridge to practice. Standards define how the policy must be followed in clear, measurable terms. For example, a policy might state that all company systems must be secured. A corresponding standard would specify that multi-factor authentication must be enabled on all endpoint devices. This distinction is important. Policies define what. Standards define how—consistently and audibly. Standards must be specific enough to support compliance checks and formal audits. They are developed by subject matter experts and then validated through appropriate governance channels to ensure they align with strategic and operational realities. On the CRISC exam, standards often determine whether a control has been implemented effectively. A vague or outdated standard may lead to inconsistent application or monitoring. Your ability to distinguish between the high-level principle of a policy and the operational detail of a standard is a key exam competency. Standards turn intent into action. They make policies real.
To answer scenario questions correctly, you must be able to differentiate between policies, standards, procedures, and guidelines. Policies are mandatory principles—they tell the organization what must be done. Standards are mandatory methods—they define how the policy should be met in a consistent way. Procedures are step-by-step instructions. They assign actions to specific roles and provide detailed direction about who does what and when. Guidelines are optional—they offer recommended practices that may vary depending on the situation. On the CRISC exam, selecting the wrong governance mechanism—such as treating a guideline as a policy—can lead you to the wrong answer. Pay close attention to the tone of the question. If the requirement is described as flexible or advisory, it likely refers to a guideline. If it’s mandatory and enforced, it may be a policy or a standard. Align your answer with the governance layer being tested. That accuracy will set apart correct choices from those that only sound plausible.
Policies and standards do not exist in isolation. They have lifecycles, and these must be managed carefully. Governance bodies are responsible for overseeing every phase—creation, approval, communication, review, and eventual retirement. A well-governed policy includes version control, a documented history, and a clearly assigned owner. Standards evolve as technology changes, as new regulations appear, or as business models shift. That’s why governance frameworks call for annual reviews or reviews triggered by specific events—such as after a security breach or a failed audit. On the exam, you may encounter scenarios where a risk emerged because a policy or standard had not been updated. A process may have changed, but the supporting governance documents did not. That gap can lead to ineffective controls and unmonitored risk. Watch for clues like version dates, last review cycles, or repeated exceptions. Lifecycle management is a quiet part of risk governance—but when it breaks down, the results can be significant.
Every policy and standard needs an owner. Ownership brings accountability. It ensures that the document is maintained, enforced, and aligned with current law, frameworks, and business objectives. Owners are responsible for tracking changes in risk, identifying necessary updates, and initiating the governance review process. Risk teams may support this work by providing analysis or helping draft revisions, but approval typically resides with senior leadership. A common exam scenario will present a case where a control has failed despite the presence of a policy. If no one is assigned to maintain or enforce that policy, its existence is irrelevant. The document sits unused. CRISC candidates must be able to recognize when a lack of ownership leads to risk exposure. Policies that go stale or unreviewed often signal weak governance. Look for indicators in questions where an important document was available but no one acted on it. In those cases, ownership—not control design—is often the root problem.
Communication and enforcement are essential components of governance effectiveness. A policy that is never shared is a policy that doesn’t exist. Communication must be formal, clear, and accessible. Relying solely on an email distribution is not enough. Organizations should use multiple channels—such as intranet postings, onboarding processes, leadership briefings, and interactive training—to ensure that employees understand what is expected of them. New employees should receive policy orientation during onboarding, and existing employees must be informed of updates and changes. Enforcement depends on this awareness. If people are not aware of a rule, they cannot be held accountable for breaking it. But when communication is clear, violations can be tracked, investigated, and responded to consistently. The exam will often test whether a policy failure was due to communication breakdown, not design flaws. If users did not know the rule existed, that is a communication issue. Pay close attention to how policies are disseminated and reinforced in scenario questions.
No policy framework is complete without a structured approach to handling exceptions. In some cases, compliance with a policy may not be feasible. Perhaps a system lacks the technical capability, or an operational condition prevents full implementation. In those cases, a formal exception process must be followed. Exceptions must be documented, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate authority—never by the person requesting the exception. They should include an expiration date, a description of the associated risk, and any compensating controls. Repeated exceptions, especially for the same issue, may signal that the policy itself needs to be revised. On the CRISC exam, you may see scenarios where excessive exceptions have been granted, or where the process for granting them is unclear. These are red flags. Exceptions must be governed like any other risk treatment. Look for clues that suggest either misuse of the process or the absence of a defined approach. Exception handling is a quiet but powerful part of the governance lifecycle.
Policies and standards operate as control mechanisms. Specifically, they are often classified as preventive or directive controls—meant to stop unwanted behavior before it happens or to guide desired actions. When well-designed and enforced, they help reduce legal, operational, and reputational risks. They also support compliance with external regulations and internal expectations. But when they are implemented poorly, they create a false sense of security. A policy that exists but is not followed is worse than no policy at all—it gives the illusion of control. CRISC professionals must assess not only whether a policy is in place, but whether it is working. Policies are part of the governance layer in the risk response hierarchy. They shape how decisions are made, how controls are chosen, and how accountability is enforced. On the exam, many questions test whether a policy or standard is actually effective. The right answer will often reflect whether governance was operational—not just theoretical.
When reading CRISC exam scenarios, pay close attention to clues that point to policy-level issues. If a question says the organization “has no formal procedure” for handling an incident, this suggests a missing governance element. If a standard is described as “outdated,” that points to a breakdown in control implementation. If employees “were unaware of the requirement,” the problem may be communication, not content. If multiple exceptions were granted, the policy may be too rigid or misaligned with reality. In all these cases, the right answer often addresses the root cause at the governance level. It may recommend a policy review, a communication campaign, or a revision of enforcement structures. CRISC professionals must be able to separate technical fixes from structural fixes. The policy layer is not always visible, but it underpins every part of the risk management process. On the exam, reading between the lines means seeing the policy behind the problem.
Thanks for joining us for this episode of The Bare Metal Cyber CRISC Prepcast. For more episodes, tools, and study support, visit us at Baremetalcyber.com.
________________________________________
