Pass the Isaca Isaca Certification CISA Questions and answers with CertsForce

The business owner is the person or entity that has the authority and responsibility for defining the purpose and scope of the processing of personal data, as well as the expected outcomes and benefits. The business owner is also accountable for ensuring that the processing of personal data complies with the applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018).

One of the requirements of the GDPR and the DPA 2018 is to adhere to the principle of storage limitation, which states that personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which it is processed1. This means that the business owner should determine and justify how long they need to retain personal data, based on factors such as:

The nature and sensitivity of the personal data

The legal or contractual obligations or rights that apply to the personal data

The business or operational needs and expectations that depend on the personal data

The risks and impacts that may arise from retaining or deleting the personal data

The business owner should also establish and document the conditions and methods for the destruction of personal data, such as:

The criteria and triggers for deciding when to destroy personal data

The procedures and tools for securely erasing or anonymising personal data

The roles and responsibilities for carrying out and overseeing the destruction of personal data

The records and reports for verifying and evidencing the destruction of personal data

Therefore, retention periods and conditions for the destruction of personal data should be determined by the business owner, as they are in charge of defining and managing the processing of personal data, as well as ensuring its compliance with the law.

The best way to ensure that business continuity plans (BCPs) will work effectively in the event of a major disaster is to involve staff at all levels in periodic paper walk-through exercises. This means that the BCPs are tested and validated by the people who will execute them in a real situation, and any gaps, errors, or inconsistencies can be identified and corrected. Paper walk-through exercises are also a good way to raise awareness and train staff on their roles and responsibilities in a BCP scenario, as well as to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the recovery strategies1.

The other options are not the best ways to ensure that BCPs will work effectively, because they do not involve testing or validating the plans. Preparing detailed plans for each business function is important, but it does not guarantee that the plans are realistic, practical, or aligned with the overall business objectives and priorities2. Regularly updating business impact assessments is also essential, but it does not ensure that the BCPs are aligned with the current business environment and risks2. Making senior managers responsible for their plan sections is a good way to assign accountability and authority, but it does not ensure that the plansections are coordinated and integrated with each other2. References:

Best Practice Guide: Business Continuity Planning (BCP)3

Best Practices for Creating a Business Continuity Plan1

Business Continuity Plan Best Practices

 The use of control totals satisfies the control objective of processing integrity. Processing integrity refers to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and validity of data processing. Control totals are a method of verifying the correctness of data processing by comparing the total value or count of a batch of transactions before and after processing. For example, if a batch of 100 invoices is entered into an accounting system, the total amount and number of invoices should match before and after processing. If there is a discrepancy, it indicates an error in data entry, transmission, or processing. Control totals help to ensure that no transactions are lost, duplicated, or altered during processing.

The audit team’s most important course of action is to consult the legal department to understand the procedure for requesting data from a different jurisdiction, as this will ensure that the data analytics techniques are compliant with the applicable laws and regulations of both countries12. Requesting data from a foreign branch may involve legal risks such as data privacy, data sovereignty, and data protection34, and the audit team should seek legal guidance before proceeding with the data extraction and analysis.

References

1: Data Analytics and Auditing Standards 2: Data Analytics and the Audit Process 3: Data Privacy and Data Protection: US Law and Legislation 4: Data Sovereignty: What It Is and Why It Matters

The design phase of the system development life cycle (SDLC) is where an IS auditor would expect to find that controlshave been incorporated into system specifications, because this is where the system requirements are translated intodetailed design specifications that include the technical, functional, and security aspects of the system34. The implementation phase iswhere the system is deployed and tested, the development phase is where the system is codedand unit tested, and thefeasibility phase is where the system objectives and scope are defined. References: 3: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2 4: CISA Online Review Course, Module 4, Lesson 2

Sending a copy of the transaction logs to offsite storage on a daily basis would minimize the risk of losing transactions as a result of a disaster. This is because offsite storage provides a backup of the data that can be recovered in case of a catastrophic event that destroys or damages the onsite data. Storing a copy of the transaction logs onsite in a fireproof vault (B) would not protect the data from other types of disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, or theft. Encrypting © or signing (D) a copy of the transaction logs and storing them on a local server would not prevent the loss of data if the server is affected by the disaster. Encryption and digital signatures are security measures that protect the confidentiality and integrity of the data, but not the availability.

This is the most helpful method for measuring benefits realization for a new system, because it involves evaluating the actual outcomes and impacts of the system after it has been implemented and used for a certain period of time. A post-implementation review can compare the actual benefits with the expected benefits that were defined in the business case or the benefits realization plan, and identify any gaps, issues, or opportunities for improvement. A post-implementation review can also assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of the system’s users, stakeholders, and customers, and provide feedback and recommendations for future enhancements or changes.

The other options are not as helpful as post-implementation review for measuring benefits realization for a new system:

Function point analysis. This is a technique that measures the size and complexity of a software system based on the number and types of functions it provides. Function point analysiscan help estimate the cost, effort, and time required to develop, maintain, or enhance a software system, but it does not measure the actual benefits or value that the system delivers to the organization or its users.

Balanced scorecard review. This is a strategic management tool that measures the performance of an organization or a business unit based on four perspectives: financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth. A balanced scorecard review can help align the organization’s vision, mission, and goals with its activities and outcomes, but it does not measure the specific benefits or impacts of a new system.

Business impact analysis (BIA). This is a process that identifies and evaluates the potential effects of a disruption or disaster on the organization’s critical business functions and processes. A BIA can help determine the recovery priorities, objectives, and strategies for the organization in case of an emergency, but it does not measure the benefits or value of a new system.

The best metric to measure the alignment of IT and business strategy is the percentage of enterprise risk assessments that include IT-related risk. This metric indicates how well the organization identifies and manages the IT risks that could affect its strategic objectives and performance. A high percentage of enterprise risk assessments that include IT-related risk shows that the organization considers IT as an integral part of its business strategy and aligns its IT resources and capabilities with its business needs and goals . References: : CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2: Governance and Management of IT, Section 2.2: IT Strategy, page 67 : CISA Online Review Course, Module 2: Governance and Management of IT, Lesson 2.2: IT Strategy

 The best evidence of an IT strategy correction’s effectiveness is the synchronization of IT activities with corporate objectives. The IT strategy correction is a process of reviewing and adjusting the IT strategy to ensure that it aligns with and supports the corporate strategy and objectives. The synchronization of IT activities with corporate objectives means that the IT activities are consistent with and contribute to the achievement of the corporate goals and vision. The IS auditor can measure and evaluate the IT strategy correction’s effectiveness by comparing the IT activities with the corporate objectives, and assessing whether they are aligned, integrated, and coordinated. The other options are not as good evidence of an IT strategy correction’s effectiveness, because they either do not reflect the alignment of IT and business, or they are inputs or outputs of the IT strategycorrection process rather than outcomes or results. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1

 A staging environment is a replica of the production environment that is used to test and verify software before deploying it to production. A staging environment is most likely to have the same software version as production, as it mimics the real-world conditions and configurations that will be encountered in production. A testing environment is a separate environment that is used to perform various types of testing on software, such as functional testing, performance testing, security testing, etc. A testing environment may not have the same software version as production, as it may undergo frequent changes or updates based on testing results or feedback. An integration environment is a separate environment that is used to combine and test software components or modules from different developers or sources, to ensure that they work together as expected. An integration environment may not have the same software version as production, as it may involve different versions or branches of software from different sources. A development environment is a separate environment that is used by developers to create and modify software code. A development environment may not have the same software version as production, as it may contain unfinished or untested code that has not been released yet.

 An IT balanced scorecard is primarily used for measuring IT strategic performance. An IT balanced scorecard is a framework that translates the IT strategy into measurable objectives, indicators, targets, and initiatives across four perspectives: financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth. An IT balanced scorecard helps to monitor and evaluate how well the IT function is delivering value to the organization, achieving its strategic goals, and improving its capabilities and competencies. The otheroptions are not the primary uses of an IT balanced scorecard, because they either focus on specific aspects of IT rather than the overall performance, or they are not directly related to the IT strategy. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.3

The best answer is B. Residual risk.

ISACA defines residual risk as the amount of risk remaining after controls and mitigation efforts are put in place. Because risk management strategies are implemented to mitigate risk, the type of risk most directly reduced is residual risk. Inherent risk exists before controls are applied, so it is not the risk category most directly reduced by control implementation. Sampling risk and detection risk are audit risks, not the primary target of enterprise risk treatment strategies.

Option C is incorrect because inherent risk is the baseline level of risk absent controls. Option A and D relate to audit methodology and audit assurance rather than enterprise risk treatment outcomes. ISACA’s risk guidance consistently describes controls and mitigation efforts as mechanisms to reduce remaining exposure to an acceptable level, which is residual risk.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA Journal, Quantifying the Qualitative Technology Risk Assessment.

ISACA Journal, Risk Assessment and Analysis Methods.

ISACA Journal, From Measurement to Management.

Deferring remediation testing until the next audit is justified only when there are significant changes in the audit environment that affect the relevance or validity of the audit observations and recommendations. For example, if there are changes in the business processes, systems, regulations, or risks that require a new audit scope or approach. The other options are not valid justifications for deferring remediation testing, as they do not address the timeliness or quality of the audit follow-up process. The auditor who conducted the audit and agreed with the timeline has left the organization does not affect the responsibility of the audit function to ensure that remediation testing is performed as planned. Management’s planned actions are sufficient given the relative importance of the observations does not guarantee that management will actually implement those actions or that they will be effective in addressing the audit issues. Auditee management has accepted all observations reported by the auditor does not eliminate the need for verification of remediation actions by an independent party. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.4

The first thing that an IS auditor should evaluate when reviewing an organization’s response to new privacy legislation is the analysis of systems that contain privacy components. Privacy components are elements of a system that collect, process, store, or transmit personal information that is subject to privacy legislation. An analysis of systems that contain privacy components should identify what types of personal information are involved, where they are located, how they are used, who has access to them, and what risks or threats they face. An analysis of systems that contain privacy components is essential for determining the scope and impact of the new privacy legislation on the organization’s systems and processes.

The other options are not as important as option D. An implementation plan for restricting the collection of personal information is a possible action, but not the first thing to evaluate, when reviewing an organization’s response to new privacy legislation. An implementation plan for restricting the collection of personal information is a document that outlines how an organization will comply with the principle of data minimization, which states that personal information should be collected only for specific and legitimate purposes and only to the extent necessary for those purposes. An implementation plan for restricting the collection of personal information should be based on an analysis of systems that contain privacy components. Privacy legislation in other countries that may contain similar requirements is a possible source of reference, but not the first thing to evaluate, when reviewing an organization’s response to new privacy legislation. Privacy legislation in other countries that may contain similar requirements is a set of laws or regulations that governs the protection of personal information in other jurisdictions that may have comparable or compatible standards or expectations as the new privacy legislation. Privacy legislation in other countries that may contain similar requirements may provide guidance or best practices for complying with the new privacy legislation. However, privacy legislation in other countries that may contain similar requirements should not be used as a substitute foran analysis of systems that contain privacy components. An operational plan for achieving compliance with the legislation is a possible deliverable, but not the first thing to evaluate, when reviewing an organization’s response to new privacy legislation. An operational plan for achieving compliance with the legislation is a document that describes how an organization will implement and maintain the necessary policies, procedures, controls, and measures to comply with the new privacy legislation. An operational plan for achieving compliance with the legislation should be derived from an analysis of systems that contain privacy components. References: Privacy law - Wikipedia, Data Protection and Privacy Legislation Worldwide | UNCTAD, Data minimization - Wikipedia

 An IS auditor is analyzing a sample of accounts payable transactions for a specific vendor and identifies one transaction with a value five times as high as the average transaction. The next step that the auditor should do is to request an explanation of the variance from the auditee. This is because the variance may indicate an error, fraud, or an unusual but legitimate transaction that requires further investigation. The auditor should not report the variance immediately to the audit committee without verifying its cause and significance. The auditor should not increase the sample size to 100% of the population without considering the cost-benefit analysis and the sampling methodology. The auditor should not exclude the transaction from the sample population without justification, as itmay affect the validity and reliability of the audit results. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), [ISACA Auditing Standards]

The correct answer is C. Software escrow agreement. A software escrow agreement is a legal arrangement between three parties: the software developer (licensor), the end-user (licensee), and an escrow agent. The agreement ensures that the software’s source code and other relevant assets are securely stored with the escrow agent, and can be released to the licensee under certain conditions, such as the licensor’s bankruptcy, insolvency, or failure to provide support or maintenance1. A software escrow agreement can provide the licensee with assurance and continuity for the software they depend on, and protect them from losing access or functionality in case of any unforeseen events or disputes with the licensor1.

 Backup procedures for an organization’s critical data are considered to be corrective controls, as they are designed to restore normal operations after a disruption or failure. Corrective controls aim to minimize the impact of an incident and prevent recurrence. Directive, detective and compensating controls are not related to backup procedures. Directive controls are intended to guide or instruct users to follow policies and procedures. Detective controls are intended to identify and report incidents or violations. Compensating controls are intended to mitigate the risk of a missing or ineffective primary control. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.11

 Validating that assets are protected according to assigned classification is the primary role of the IS auditor in an organization’s information classification process. An IS auditor should evaluate whether the information security controls are adequate and effective in safeguarding the information assets based on their classification levels. The other options are not the primary role of the IS auditor, but rather the responsibilities of the information owners, custodians, or security managers. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 6, Section 6.2.31

CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database, Question ID 206

User requirements are the foundation of any successful application. Properly defining what the application needs to do and how it should serve users is critical before moving into design or development.

The greatest concern is whether the increased incident resolution time will adversely affect the organization’s business operations and whether that impact was properly assessed before the contract change. In ISACA terms, service arrangements should be aligned with business needs and service objectives. If a contract change weakens incident response commitments, the key audit concern is not simply the wording of the SLA, but whether management evaluated the resulting business impact. ISACA guidance notes that support agreements and SLAs should be aligned with internal service expectations and business requirements.

Option A is correct because incident resolution times directly affect availability, continuity, user support, and operational resilience. If the contract now permits slower restoration or resolution, the organization may be exposed to longer outages or degraded services. The central risk is whether management made that trade-off knowingly after analyzing the impact on critical business processes. This is the most important concern from an audit and governance perspective.

Option B is not the best answer because noncompliance with IT security policy could be serious, but the question specifically highlights a change in incident resolution time. Unless there is evidence of an actual policy violation, the more direct concern is operational impact on the business.

Option C is also not the greatest concern. In practice, if the contract terms changed, the SLA may need revision or alignment, but that is more of a documentation and governance symptom. The deeper issue is whether the revised service commitments are acceptable to the business. ISACA guidance stresses alignment of support agreements and SLAs with organizational needs.

Option D is the weakest answer because considering alternative cost-reduction methods is a management decision, not the primary audit concern. Auditors focus on risk and control implications, not whether management explored every possible commercial option.

Therefore, A is the best answer because the most significant issue is whether the organization evaluated the impact of slower incident resolution on business processes before accepting the lower-cost contract.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA, A Framework for SIEM Implementation — support agreements should be aligned with internal SLAs.

ISACA, Top Risks and Rewards of Moving to the Cloud — auditors should review cloud provider SLAs and evaluate continuity implications.

ISACA Journal, Is Business Continuity Management Still Relevant? — audit concern centers on business impact and risk acceptance.

ISACA Journal, Understanding Software Metric Use — SLAs should use metrics that are monitored and measured.

 The most important consideration for a go-live decision when implementing an upgraded enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is the business case. The business case is the document that defines and justifies the need, value, feasibility, and risks of the project. It also outlines the expected costs, benefits, outcomes, and impacts of the project. The business case provides the basis for measuring and evaluating the success of the project. Therefore, before deciding to go live with an upgraded ERP system, it is essential to review and validate the business case to ensure that it is still relevant, accurate, realistic, and achievable.

A rollback strategy, test cases, and post-implementation review objectives are not the most important considerations for a go-live decision when implementing an upgraded ERP system. These are important elements of project planning, execution, and evaluation, but they are not sufficient to determine whether the project is worth pursuing or delivering. These elements should be aligned with and derived from the business case.

This means that the IT steering committee is responsible for ensuring that the IT strategy aligns with and supports the business strategy, vision, and goals of the organization. The IT steering committee is also responsible for overseeing and approving major IT initiatives, projects, and investments, and allocating resources and priorities accordingly12.

Developing and assessing the IT security strategy (B) is not the main responsibility of the IT steering committee, but rather a specific aspect of the IT strategy that may be delegated to a subcommittee or a dedicated security function. The IT steering committee may provide guidance and oversight for the IT security strategy, but it is not directly involved in developing and assessing it12.

Implementing processes to integrate security with business objectives © is not the main responsibility of the IT steering committee, but rather an operational task that may be performed by the IT management and staff. The IT steering committee may monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the security processes, but it is not directly involved in implementing them12.

Developing and implementing the secure system development framework (D) is not the main responsibility of the IT steering committee, but rather a technical task that may be performed by the IT developers and engineers. The IT steering committee may approve and endorse the secure system development framework, but it is not directly involved in developing and implementing it12.

The primary benefit of automating application testing is to provide test consistency. Automated testing can ensure that the same test cases are executed in the same manner and order every time, which can improve the reliability and accuracy of the test results. Providing more flexibility, replacing all manual test processes, and reducing the time to review code are possible benefits of automating application testing, but they are not the primary benefit. References:

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2020, p. 3091

ISACA, CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription

 The most significant concern for an IS auditor when reviewing an industrial control system (ICS) that uses older unsupported technology in the scope of an upcoming audit is that there is a greater risk of system exploitation. System exploitation is an attack that occurs when an unauthorized entity or individual takes advantage of a vulnerability or weakness in a system to compromise its security or functionality. System exploitation can cause harm or damage to the system or its users, such as data loss, corruption, theft, manipulation, denial of service (DoS), etc. An ICS that uses older unsupported technology poses a high risk of system exploitation, as older technology may have known or unknown vulnerabilities or defects that have not been patched or fixed by the vendor or manufacturer, and unsupported technology may not receive any updates or support from the vendor or manufacturer in case of issues or incidents. Attack vectors are evolving for industrial control systems is a possible concern for an IS auditor when reviewing an ICS that uses older unsupported technology in the scope of an upcoming audit, but it is not the most significant one. Attack vectors are methods or pathways that attackers use to gain access to or attack a system. Attack vectors are evolving for industrial control systems, as attackers are developing new techniques or tools to target ICSs that are increasingly connected and complex. However, this concern may not be specific to older unsupported technology, as it may affect any ICS regardless of its technology level. Disaster recovery plans (DRPs) are not in place is a possible concern for an IS auditor when reviewing an ICS that uses older unsupported technology in the scope of an upcoming audit, but it is not the most significant one. DRPs are documents that outline the technical and operational steps for restoring the IT systems and infrastructure that support critical functions or processes in the event of a disruption or disaster. DRPs are not in place, as they may affect the availability and continuity of the ICS and its functions or processes in case of a failure or incident. However, this concern may not be related to older unsupported technology, as it may apply to any ICS regardless of its technology level. Technical specifications are not documented is a possible concern for an IS auditor when reviewing an ICS that uses older unsupported technology in the scope of an upcoming audit, but it is not the most significant one. Technical specifications are documents that describe the technical characteristics or requirements of a system or component, such as functionality, performance, design, etc. Technical specifications are not documented, as they may affect the understanding, maintenance, and improvement of the ICS and its components. However, this concern may not beassociated with older unsupported technology, as it may affect any ICS regardless of its technology level. 

Tabletop exercises are a type of simulation used to test an organization’s incident response plan12. They involve key stakeholders in a hypothetical scenario to see how they would respond12. This allows management to assess the effectiveness of the incident response process and identify areas for improvement12. Regularly conducting these exercises ensures that the organization is prepared for a real incident and that the incident response process remains effective over time12.

Machine shredding is the process of using a shredding machine to physically destroy the media and make the data unrecoverable. This is more effective than software formatting, which only erases the data logically and may leave traces that can be recovered by special tools1. Encrypting and destroying keys may prevent unauthorized access to the data, but it does not erase the data from the media. Wiping and rewriting three times is unnecessary and may reduce the lifespan of the media, especially for solid state drives2. Machine shredding is also recommended by various security standards and guidelines for media disposal345.

 Impact assessment is an activity that occurs during the issues management process for a system development project. Issues management is a process of identifying, analyzing, resolving, and monitoring issues that may affect the project scope, schedule, budget, or quality. Impact assessment is a technique of evaluating the severity and priority of an issue, as well as its implications for the project objectives and deliverables. The other options are not activities that occur during the issues management process, but rather related to other processes such as contingency planning, configuration management, or help desk management. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.3.31

CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database, Question ID 217

The IS auditor should be most concerned if completeness testing has not been performed on the log data, as this could indicate that some logs are missing, corrupted, or tampered with, and that the log aggregation system is not reliable or accurate12. Completeness testing is a process of verifying that all the logs generated by the source systems are successfully collected, transferred, and stored by the log aggregation system, and that there are no gaps or inconsistencies in the log data34. Completeness testing is essential for ensuring the integrity and validity of the log data, and for supporting the risk management practices of the organization.

References

1: Log Aggregation: How it Works, Methods, and Tools - Exabeam2 2: Log Aggregation and Monitoring Relation in Cybersecurity4 3: Log Aggregation: What It Is and How It Works | Datadog3 4: Data Flow Testing - GeeksforGeeks1

Mapping IT processes to roles is an activity that provides an IS auditor with the most insight regarding potential single person dependencies that might exist within the organization. Single person dependencies occur when only one person has the knowledge, skills, or access rights to perform a critical IT function. Mapping IT processes to roles can help to identify such dependencies and assess their impact on the continuity and security of IT operations. The other activities do not provide as much insight into single person dependencies, as they do not show the relationship between IT processes and roles. References: CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 94

In the event of a disaster where the data center is no longer available, the first step should be to activate the call tree1. A call tree is a layered hierarchical communication model used to notify specific individuals of an event and coordinate recovery efforts1. This ensures that all relevant parties are informed about the situation and can begin executing their parts of the disaster recovery plan1.

The most important consideration when planning the next audit after many findings is to follow up on the status of all recommendations, as this will ensure that the audit findings are addressed in a timely and effective manner, and that the root causes of the issues are resolved12. Following up on the status of all recommendations will also help to assess the progress and performance of the IT department, and to identify any new or emerging risks or challenges34.

References

1: What to consider when resolving internal audit findings3 2: A brief guide to follow up4 3: Guidance on auditing planning for Internal Audit2 4: Corrective Action Plan (CAP): How to Manage Audit Findings1

 Partitioning the work environment from personal space on devices. This would best maintain information security without compromising employee privacy by creating a separate and secure area on the personal mobile devices for work-related data and applications. This way, the organization can protect its information from unauthorized access, loss, or leakage, while respecting the employees’ personal data and preferences on their own devices.

The other options are not as effective as option B in balancing information security and employee privacy. Option A, installing security software on the devices, is a good practice but may not be sufficient to prevent data breaches or comply with regulatory requirements. Option C, preventing users from adding applications, is too restrictive and may interfere with the employees’ personal use of their devices. Option D, restricting the use of devices for personal purposes during working hours, is impractical and difficult to enforce.

The most effective control to mitigate unintentional misuse of authorized access is security awareness training. This is because security awareness training can educate users on the proper use of their access rights, the potential consequences of misuse, and the best practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information systems. Security awareness training can also help users recognize and avoid common threats such as phishing, malware, and social engineering.

Annual sign-off of acceptable use policy, regular monitoring of user access logs, and formalized disciplinary action are not the most effective controls to mitigate unintentional misuse of authorized access. These controls may help deter or detect intentional misuse, but they do not address the root cause of unintentional misuse, which is often a lack of knowledge or awareness of security policies and procedures.

The answer B is correct because a system-generated list of staff and their project assignments, roles, and responsibilities is the most useful to an IS auditor performing a review of access controls for a document management system. A document management system is a software that helps organizations store, manage, and share documents electronically. Access controls are the mechanisms that restrict or allow access to the documents based on predefined criteria, such as user identity, role, or project. An IS auditor needs to verify that the access controls are properly configured and implemented to ensure the security, confidentiality, and integrity of the documents.

A system-generated list of staff and their project assignments, roles, and responsibilities can help the IS auditor to perform the following tasks:

Identify the users who have access to the document management system and their level of access (e.g., read-only, edit, delete, etc.).

Compare the actual access rights of the users with their expected or authorized access rights based on their roles and responsibilities.

Detect any anomalies, discrepancies, or violations in the access rights of the users, such as excessive or unauthorized access, segregation of duties conflicts, or dormant or inactive accounts.

Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the access control policies and procedures, such as user provisioning, deprovisioning, authentication, authorization, auditing, etc.

The other options are not as useful as option B. Policies and procedures for managing documents provided by department heads (option A) are not reliable sources of information for an IS auditor because they may not reflect the actual practices or compliance status of the document management system. Previous audit reports related to other departments’ use of the same system (option C) are not relevant for an IS auditor because they may not address the specific issues or risks associatedwith the current department’s use of the document management system. Information provided by the audit team lead on the authentication systems used by the department (option D) is not sufficient for an IS auditor because authentication is only one aspect of access control and it does not provide information on the authorization or auditing of the document access.

The most important thing to define within a disaster recovery plan (DRP) is the roles and responsibilities for recovery team members, as this ensures that everyone knows what to do, who to report to, and how to communicate in the event of a disaster. A business continuity plan (BCP) is a broader document that covers the overall strategy and objectives for maintaining or resuming business operations after a disaster. Test results for backup data restoration are important to verify the integrity and availability of backup data, but they are not part of the DRP itself. A comprehensive list of disaster recovery scenarios and priorities is useful to identify the potential risks and impacts of different types of disasters, but it is not as critical as defining the roles and responsibilities for recovery team members. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4: Information Systems Operations, Maintenance and Service Management, Section 4.3: Disaster Recovery Planning1

An IT steering committee is a group of senior executives and stakeholders who provide strategic direction, guidance, and oversight for the IT function of an organization. An IT steering committee can help to improve the maturity of the IT team by ensuring that the IT initiatives are aligned with the business goals and objectives, that the IT resources are allocated and utilized effectively and efficiently, and that the IT performance and value are measuredand communicated. An IT steering committee can also help to resolve conflicts, prioritize demands, and foster collaboration among the IT project managers and other business units.

References

ISACA CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 254

Auditing IT Governance

The Impact of Poor IT Audit Planning and Mitigating Audit Risk

IS Audit Basics: The Components of the IT Audit Report

Documenting anomalies in audit workpapers (D) is the best approach because it ensures traceability, supports findings in the audit report, and allows for future reference if similar issues arise. Even if an anomaly is low-risk, proper documentation is a fundamental audit practice.

Other options:

Reprioritizing testing (A) is a valid audit approach but does not address documentation needs.

Updating the audit plan (B) may be necessary but does not replace documentation.

Prompt remediation (C) is an operational concern but is not always the auditor’s primary role.

The greatest concern for an IS auditor reviewing an organization’s business continuity plan (BCP) is that the BCP has not been tested since it was first issued. A BCP is a document that describes how an organization will continue its critical business functions in the event of a disruption or disaster. A BCP should include information such as roles and responsibilities, recovery strategies, resources,procedures, communication plans, and backup arrangements3. Testing the BCP is a vital step in ensuring its validity, effectiveness, and readiness. Testing the BCP involves simulating various scenarios and executing the BCP to verify whether it meets its objectives and requirements. Testing the BCP can also help to identify and correct any gaps, errors, or weaknesses in the BCP before they become issues during a real incident4. Therefore, an IS auditor should be concerned if the BCP has not been tested since it was first issued, as it may indicate that the BCP is outdated, inaccurate, incomplete, or ineffective. The other options are less concerning or incorrect because:

A. The BCP’s contact information needs to be updated is not a great concern for an IS auditor reviewing an organization’s BCP, as it is a minor issue that can be easily fixed. Contact information refers to the names, phone numbers, email addresses, or other details of the people involved in the BCP execution or communication. Contact information needs to be updated regularly to reflect any changes in personnel or roles. While having outdated contact information may cause some delays or confusion during a BCP activation, it does not affect the overall validity or effectiveness of the BCP.

B. The BCP is not version controlled is not a great concern for an IS auditor reviewing an organization’s BCP, as it is a moderate issue that can be improved. Version control refers to the process of tracking and managing changes made to the BCP over time. Version control helps to ensure that only authorized changes are made to the BCP and that there is a clear record of who made what changes when and why. Version control also helps to avoid conflicts or inconsistencies among different versions of the BCP. While having no version control may cause some difficulties or risks in maintaining and updating the BCP, it does not affect the overall validity or effectiveness of the BCP.

C. The BCP has not been approved by senior management is not a great concern for an IS auditor reviewing an organization’s BCP, as it is a high-level issue that can be resolved. Approval by senior management refers to the formal endorsement and support of the BCP by the top executives or leaders of the organization. Approval by senior management helps to ensure that the BCP is aligned with the organization’s strategy, objectives, and priorities, and that it has sufficient resources and authority to be implemented. Approval by senior management also helps to increase the awareness and commitment of the organization’s stakeholders to the BCP. While having no approval by senior management may affect the credibilityand acceptance of the BCP, it does not affect the overall validity or effectiveness of the BCP. References: Working Toward a Managed, Mature Business Continuity Plan - ISACA, ISACA Introduces New Audit Programs for Business Continuity/Disaster …, Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Preparedness for Cloud-based …

The most important consideration when assessing the adequacy of management’s remediation action plan is the criticality of the audit findings, as this reflects the level of risk and impact that the findings pose to the organization’s objectives, performance, and value. The IS auditor should evaluate whether the remediation action plan addresses the root causes, mitigates the risks, and resolves the issues of the audit findings in a timely and effective manner. The IS auditor should also consider the feasibility, reasonableness, and measurability of the remediation actions.

References

ISACA CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 256

How to Write an Audit Finding - Dallas Chapter of the IIA

How to Write an Audit Report: 14 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

DLP (Data Loss Prevention) toolsare designed toprevent unauthorized access, transfer, or leakage of sensitive data, especially byinsider threatsorunauthorized downloads.

Preventing Unauthorized Downloads (Correct Answer – C)

DLP solutionsblock or log attemptsto transfer sensitive files.

Example:A DLP tool detects andblocks an employee from copying confidential data to a USB drive.

Preventing Malware Installation (Incorrect – A, B)

Antivirus and endpoint protection tools, not DLP, handle malware threats.

Preventing Corrupt Data Transmission (Incorrect – D)

DLP focuses ondata protection, not detecting corrupt files.

Data caching is the most likely cause of poor performance, data inconsistency and integrity issues in an IT application, because it involves storing frequently accessed data in a temporary memory location (cache) to reduce the latency and bandwidth consumption of retrieving data from the original source. However, data caching can also introduce problems such as stale data (when the cache is not updated with changes made to the original source), cache coherence (when multiple caches store copies of the same data and need to be synchronized), and cache corruption (when the cache is damaged or tampered with).

Database clustering is not a likely cause of poor performance, data inconsistency and integrity issues, because it involves distributing data across multiple servers or nodes to improve availability, scalability and load balancing of database operations. Database clustering can also enhance data consistency and integrity by using replication and synchronization mechanisms to ensure that all nodes have the same view of the data.

Reindexing of the database table is not a likely cause of poor performance, data inconsistency and integrity issues, because it involves rebuilding or reorganizing indexes on tables or views to improve query performance and reduce fragmentation of index pages. Reindexing can also improve data consistency and integrity by ensuring that indexes reflect the current state of the data in the tables or views.

Load balancing is not a likely cause of poor performance, data inconsistency and integrity issues, because it involves distributing workloads across multiple servers or resources to optimize resource utilization, throughput and response time of applications. Load balancing can also enhance data consistency and integrity by using algorithms and protocols to route requests to the most appropriate server or resource based on availability, capacity and performance.