A company filed a complaint with its IT service provider after the company discovered the service provider's external audit team had access to some of the company's confidential information. Which…

Question

Options

• AThe MOU had basic clauses from a template.
• BA SOW had not been agreed to by the client.
• CA WO had not been mutually approved.
• DA required NDA had not been signed.

• A
  2% (1)
• B
  2% (1)
• C
  5% (3)
• D
  92% (59)

Explanation

An NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) is specifically designed to legally prevent third parties - including auditors - from accessing or disclosing confidential information, making its absence the direct cause of this breach. When an external audit team accessed confidential data without one in place, the company had no legal recourse or contractual protection, which is precisely the grounds for a complaint.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A (MOU): A Memorandum of Understanding establishes general intent and high-level cooperation terms - it doesn't govern confidentiality of information accessed by third parties.
• B (SOW): A Statement of Work defines the scope, deliverables, and tasks of a project. It wouldn't restrict an auditor's access to sensitive data.
• C (WO): A Work Order authorizes specific tasks and may reference a SOW, but like the SOW, it deals with scope of work - not information confidentiality.

Memory tip: Match the problem to the document. Confidential data leaking = NDA (it's in the name: Non-Disclosure). MOUs, SOWs, and WOs all govern what work gets done, not what information stays secret.

No community discussion yet for this question.