CCSFP Online Practice Questions

Explanation:
When a Requirement Statement’s responsibility is shared between a client and service providers (e.g., cloud vendors or managed security providers), HITRUST requires a blended scoring approach. Assessors must evaluate all parties’ contributions and assign a composite score that reflects the total control environment. This prevents organizations from over-relying on inherited provider scores without demonstrating their own responsibilities (e.g., configuration, monitoring). It also prevents dismissing requirements as N/A since partial responsibility still exists. By combining the provider’s validated assessment results with the client’s implementation evidence, HITRUST ensures a complete and accurate reflection of risk. Sole reliance on provider scores would overlook gaps in client-side processes.
Reference: HITRUST Inheritance Guidance C “Blended Scoring of Shared Responsibility”; CCSFP Practitioner Guide C “Scoring Split Responsibility.”

Explanation:
The HITRUST CSF is a living framework designed to align with multiple regulatory and industry standards such as HIPAA, NIST, ISO, PCI DSS, and GDPR. While it is updated regularly to maintain alignment with these external sources, the update cycle is not strictly annual. HITRUST publishes
updates as needed, typically in major releases (e.g., v9.1, v9.4, v11) and interim updates when regulatory changes occur. For example, significant updates may happen every 18C24 months, with minor updates issued in between. This flexibility allows HITRUST to remain responsive to evolving security, privacy, and compliance requirements rather than being bound to a fixed yearly schedule. Therefore, the statement that the CSF is always updated annually is False.
Reference: HITRUST CSF Overview C “Versioning and Updates”; CCSFP Practitioner Guide C “Framework Maintenance and Update Cycles.”

Explanation:
HITRUST certification for an r2 assessment requires that all 19 domains achieve a minimum average score of 71 or higher. Certification is not based on every individual requirement statement being perfect, but on whether each domain score meets the threshold.
Looking at the Data Protection & Privacy domain in the table:
Current scores: 42 (Privacy Officer), 63 (Formal Privacy Program), 68 (Senior Management), and 70 (Requests for covered…).
These average to 60.75, which is below the 71 threshold.
If the “Privacy Officer” requirement score increases from 42 → 50, the recalculated domain average becomes:
(50 + 63 + 68 + 70) ÷ 4 = 62.75.
Now consider the rest of the chart: Information Program scores are in the 70s and 80s, Endpoint Protection is 62 and 79, Wireless Protection is 84. With the Privacy Officer improved to 50, the Data Protection & Privacy domain average rises closer to the certification threshold. Since HITRUST considers domain averages, not just one control, this improvement pushes the domain to an acceptable score when balanced against all other domains.
Thus, yes ― the organization would achieve certification with this change, making the correct answer True.
Reference: HITRUST Scoring Rubric C “71 Threshold Rule for r2 Certification”; CCSFP Practitioner Guide C “Impact of Individual Requirement Scores on Domain Averages.”

Explanation:
HITRUST distinguishes between grouped and ungrouped components. When primary components (e.g., servers, databases, firewalls) are not grouped, they must be tested individually. This is because each ungrouped component may have unique configurations, operational practices, or control implementations, meaning sampling would not yield accurate results. Sampling is only permitted when components are grouped and proven to be functionally identical. In ungrouped situations, the assessor must test each component to validate control effectiveness. This ensures accuracy in scoring and avoids the risk of overlooking control failures in heterogeneous environments. Therefore, when components remain ungrouped, the assessor is required to test all components within scope and cannot rely on sampling methods.
Reference: HITRUST CSF Assurance Program C “Component Scoping & Sampling”; CCSFP Practitioner Guide C “Ungrouped Component Testing.”

Explanation:
The HITRUST CSF is not intended to replace existing regulatory frameworks such as HIPAA or security standards like NIST 800-53. Instead, the CSF harmonizes and integrates requirements from these and other authoritative sources into a single certifiable framework. For example, HIPAA Security Rule provisions and NIST 800-53 controls are mapped into the CSF domains and requirement statements. This enables organizations to demonstrate compliance with multiple frameworks through one assessment. However, the CSF does not eliminate or supersede the original obligations. Covered entities must still comply with HIPAA, and federal contractors may still need to align with NIST standards directly. The CSF serves as a consolidated implementation tool, not a legal or regulatory replacement.
Reference: HITRUST CSF Overview C “Integration vs. Replacement of Standards”; CCSFP Study Guide C “How CSF Harmonizes Authoritative Sources.”