The issue described suggests a systemic authorization flaw, where users gain unrestricted access once logged in. This points to an improperly configured authorization system, which should enforce role-based or least-privilege access to restrict users based on their job responsibilities.

(A) Incorrect – The authentication process relies on a simple password only, which is a weak method of authorization.

While weak authentication is a security risk, the issue described relates to excessive access permissions, not weak login credentials.

(B) Correct – The system authorization of the user does not correctly reflect the access rights intended.

The problem is that users have access to all functionality, which indicates an authorization issue, not an authentication flaw.

Proper role-based access controls (RBAC) should limit user permissions based on job functions.

(C) Incorrect – There was no periodic review to validate access rights.

While periodic reviews are important for detecting unauthorized access, the issue here is a system-level authorization design flaw rather than a failure in periodic reviews.

(D) Incorrect – The application owner apparently did not approve the access request during the provisioning process.

Even if an access request was approved incorrectly, the broader issue remains that all users have unrestricted access, which suggests a system misconfiguration rather than a single provisioning error.

IIA’s GTAG (Global Technology Audit Guide) – Access Control and Authorization

Emphasizes the need for role-based access control (RBAC) to prevent unauthorized access.

COBIT Framework – IT Security Governance

Discusses proper authorization mechanisms to align system access with business needs.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework – Access Management Controls

Recommends restricting access rights based on the principle of least privilege (PoLP).

Analysis of Answer Choices:IIA References and Internal Auditing Standards: