The keyword in this question is "validate" organizational awareness. We are not just trying to improve awareness but to measure how effective current awareness really is.
CRISC-aligned guidance on awareness and monitoring emphasizes that:
* Security awareness programs must be measured for effectiveness (e.g., changes in behavior, reporting, incident statistics).
* Simulated social-engineering or phishing campaigns are a direct way to test whether employees recognize and handle actual attack patterns.
* The MOST effective way to improve and measure security awareness after phishing incidents is to perform periodic social engineering tests and communicate the results to staff.
Phishing simulations:
* Provide objective metrics: click rates, credential submission rates, reporting rates.
* Directly test awareness in real-life-like conditions.
* Highlight high-risk groups or departments.
* Support targeted follow-up training and reporting to management.
Why the other options are less effective for validation:
* A. Requiring two-factor authentication improves technical security but does not demonstrate whether users understand broader cyber risk.
* B. Conducting security awareness training is an input activity; by itself, it does not show whether staff actually learned or changed behavior.
* D. Updating the information security policy provides documented rules but does not validate whether people read, understand, or follow them.
Thus, implementing phishing simulations is the MOST effective method to validate (test and evidence) organizational awareness of cybersecurity risk, consistent with CRISC guidance on using simulated attacks and metrics to assess awareness-program effectiveness.