Pass the Isaca Isaca Certification CISA Questions and answers with CertsForce

A demilitarized zone (DMZ) is a network segment that is separated from the internal network and the external network, such as the internet, by firewalls or other security devices. A DMZ provides an extra layer of security for the organization’s internal network by isolating the servers and services that need to be accessible to external users, such as a file server, from the rest of the network. A DMZ also prevents external users from accessing the internal network directly, as they have to go through two firewalls to reach it. Therefore, setting up a DMZ is an IS auditor’s best recommendation to protect anorganization from attacks when its file server needs to be accessible to external users12.

The other possible options are:

Enforce a secure tunnel connection: This means that the organization requires external users to establish a secure and encrypted connection, such as a virtual private network (VPN), to access its file server. This can provide some level of security and privacy for the data transmission, but it does not protect the file server or the internal network from attacks if the connection is compromised or if the external users are malicious. Therefore, enforcing asecuretunnel connection is not an IS auditor’s best recommendation to protect an organization from attacks when its file server needs to be accessible to external users3.

Enhance internal firewalls: This means that the organization improves the security and performance of its internal firewalls, which are devices that filter and control the network traffic between different segments of the network. This can provide some level of protection for the internal network from unauthorized or malicious access, but it does not protect the file server or the external network from attacks if the file server is exposed to the internet or if the external network is compromised. Therefore, enhancing internal firewalls is not an IS auditor’s best recommendation to protect an organization from attacks when its file server needs to be accessible to external users4.

Implement a secure protocol: This means that the organization uses a secure and standardized protocol, such as Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) or Secure Shell (SSH), to transfer files between its file server and external users. This can provide some level of security and integrity for the data transmission, but it does not protect the file server or the internal network from attacks if the protocol is exploited or if the external users are malicious. Therefore, implementing a secure protocol is not an IS auditor’s best recommendation to protect an organization from attacks when its file server needs to be accessible to external users5. References: 1: What Is a DMZ Network and Why Would You Use It? | Fortinet 2: Demilitarised zone (DMZ) | Cyber.gov.au 3: What Is VPN Tunneling? | Fortinet 4: Firewall - Wikipedia 5: Secure Shell - Wikipedia

The greatest concern in a CI/CD environment is the accuracy of automated testing. Since code is deployed rapidly and often without manual intervention, weak or inaccurate test cases can allow vulnerabilities and defects to be pushed directly into production. Release frequency (A) and changing user requirements (D) are expected characteristics of agile/DevOps models and can be managed with governance. Delayed post-implementation reviews (B) may reduce oversight but do not directly undermine the core pipeline integrity. ISACA’s DevOps guidance emphasizes that automated testing and validation of requirements must be thorough and reliable to ensure continuous deployment does not compromise quality or security.

References (ISACA): COBIT® Focus Area for DevOps; BAI06 Managed IT Changes.

The correct answer is D. Performing a bank reconciliation.

A duplicate payment is a transaction-processing error that affects financial completeness and accuracy. A bank reconciliation is the best compensating control among the options because it compares the organization’s payment records with actual bank activity and helps identify duplicate or incorrect payments after processing.

Option A is not the best answer because manually receipting payments is inefficient and does not reliably detect duplicate outgoing payments. Option B is not correct because hash totals are usually nonfinancial totals used to check processing completeness, such as account number totals, and would not effectively identify duplicate payments. Option C may help detect differences in batch totals, but duplicate online payments can still occur unless the reconciliation identifies the actual duplicate disbursement or settlement.

ISACA has discussed duplicate payment detection as an internal control concern and notes that automated controls can detect duplicate and fraudulent transactions across complete data sets. That supports the control principle that duplicate payments require detective/reconciliation controls, not merely basic totals.

 Regular scanning of hard drives is the most effective way to detect installation of unauthorized software packages by employees because it can identify any software that is not approved by the organization and may pose a security risk or violate the software policy. Communicating the policy to employees is important, but it may not prevent or detect unauthorized software installation. Logging of activity on the network can monitor network traffic, but it may not capture all software installation events. Maintaining current antivirus software can protect the system from malicious software, but it may not detect all unauthorized software packages. References:

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2020, p. 2381

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

Reviewing the last compile date of production programs is the most efficient way to detect unauthorized changes to production programs, as it can quickly identify any discrepancies between the expected and actual dates of program modification. The last compile date is a timestamp that indicates when a program was last compiled or translated from source code to executable code. Any changes to the source code would require a recompilation, which would update the last compile date. The IS auditor can compare the last compile date of production programs with the authorizedchange requests and reports to verify that only approved changes were implemented. The other options are not as efficient as option A, as they are more time-consuming, labor-intensive or error-prone. Manually comparing code in production programs to controlled copies is a method of verifying that the code in production matches the code in a secure repository or library, but it requires access to both versions of code and a tool or technique to compare them line by line. Periodically running and reviewing test data against production programs is a method of verifying that the programs produce the expected outputs and results, but it requires designing, executing and evaluating test cases for each program. Verifying user management approval of modifications is a method of verifying that the changes to production programs were authorized and documented, but it does not ensure that the changes were implemented correctly or accurately. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 4: Information Systems Operations and Business Resilience, Section 4.3: Change Management Practices.

The best recommendation to address the risk of privileged application accounts with passwords set to never expire in a 24/7 processing environment is to introduce database access monitoring into the environment. Database access monitoring is a security control that tracks and records all activities and transactions performed on a database, especially by privileged users or accounts. Database access monitoring can help address the risk of privileged application accounts with passwords set to never expire by detecting and alerting any unauthorized or abnormal access or actions on the database. The other options are not as effective as database access monitoring in addressing the risk, as they may cause disruption to the business or violate the access management policy. Modifying applications to no longer require direct access to the database is a complex and costly solution that may affect the functionality or performance of the applications, and it may not be feasible or practical in a 24/7 processing environment. Modifying the access management policy to make allowances for application accounts is a risky solution that may create exceptions or loopholes in the policy, and it may not comply with the best practices or standards for password management. Scheduling downtime to implement password changes is a disruptive solution that may affect the availability or continuity of the systems or applications, and it may not be acceptable or possible in a 24/7 processing environment. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4

 The greatest benefit of using a prototyping approach in software development is that it helps to conceptualize and clarify requirements. A prototyping approach is a method of creating a simplified or partial version of a software product to demonstrate its features and functionality. A prototyping approach can help to elicit, validate, and refine the requirements of the software product, as well as to obtain feedback from the users and stakeholders. The other options are not the greatest benefits of using a prototyping approach, but rather possible outcomes or advantages of doing so. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.3.11

CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database, Question ID 227

Transaction tagging is a technique by which transactions are marked with unique identifiers or headers and traced through the system using agents or sensors at each processing point1. Transaction tagging allows for continuous monitoring and analysis of transaction processing in a high-volume, real-time system by providing visibility into the performance, availability, and reliability of each transaction and its components1. Transaction tagging can also help to identify and isolate errors, bottlenecks, anomalies, and security issues in the system1.

The best way to provide assurance that a project is adhering to the project plan is to conduct compliance audits at major system milestones. A compliance audit is a systematic and independent examination of the project’s activities, documents, and deliverables to determine whether they conform to the project plan and its specifications, standards, and requirements1. A major system milestone is a significant point or event in the project’s life cycle that marks the completion of a phase, stage, or deliverable2.

By conducting compliance audits at major system milestones, the auditor can provide assurance that the project is adhering to the project plan by:

Verifying that the project’s scope, schedule, budget, quality, and risks are aligned with the project plan and its objectives1

Identifying any deviations, discrepancies, or non-compliances that may affect the project’s performance or outcome1

Recommending and monitoring corrective and preventive actions to address the identified issues and improve the project’s compliance1

Reporting and communicating the audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the relevant stakeholders1

The other options are not as effective as conducting compliance audits at major system milestones for providing assurance that the project is adhering to the project plan. Requiring design reviews at appropriate points in the life cycle is a useful technique for ensuring that the project’s design meets the user and business requirements and follows the design standards and best practices3. However, design reviews are not sufficient for providing assurance that the project is adhering to the project plan, as they do not cover other aspects of the project such as schedule, budget, quality, or risks. Having an IS auditor participate on the steering committee is a possible way for providing assurance that the project is adhering to the project plan, as the auditor can provide independent advice and oversight to the steering committee on quality management issues and remediation efforts4. However, this may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, as it may create a conflict of interest or compromise the auditor’s objectivity and independence. Having an IS auditor participate on the quality assurance (QA) team is another possible way for providing assurance that the project is adhering to the project plan, as the auditor can assist the QA team in implementing procedures to facilitate adoption of quality management best practices5. However, this may also not be feasible or appropriate for every project, as it may create a conflict of interest or compromise the auditor’s objectivity and independence. Therefore, option D is the correct answer.

A post-implementation review (PIR) is an assessment conducted at the end of a project cycle to determine if the project was indeed successful and to identify any existing flaws in the project1. One of the main objectives of a PIR isto evaluate the outcome and functional value of a project1. Therefore, an IS auditor should be most concerned with whether the system meets the intended requirements and delivers the expected benefits to the stakeholders. A system that does not have a maintenance plan is a major risk, as it may not be able to cope with changing needs, fix errors, or prevent security breaches. A maintenance planis essential for ensuring the system’s reliability, availability, and performance in the long term2.

The other options are less critical for a PIR, as they are more related to the project management aspects than the system quality aspects. The system may contain several minor defects that do not affect its functionality or usability, and these can be resolved in future updates. The system deployment may be delayed by three weeks due to unforeseen circumstances or dependencies, but this does not necessarily mean that the system is faulty or ineffective. The system may be over budget by 15% due to various factors such as scope creep, resource constraints, or market fluctuations, but this does not imply that the system is not valuable or beneficial.

 The first step that an IS auditor should take when finding that a business impact analysis (BIA) has not been performed is to evaluate the impact on current disaster recovery capability. A BIA is a process that identifies and analyzes the potential effects of disruptions to critical business functions and processes. A BIA helps determine the recovery priorities, objectives, and strategies for the organization. Without a BIA, the disaster recovery plan may not be aligned with the business needs and expectations, and may not provide adequate protection and recovery for the most critical assets and activities. Therefore, an IS auditor should assess how the lack of a BIA affects the current disaster recovery capability and identify any gaps or risks that need to be addressed.

Performing a BIA, issuing an intermediate report to management, and conducting additional compliance testing are not the first steps that an IS auditor should take when finding that a BIA has not been performed. These steps may be done later in the audit process, after evaluating the impact on current disaster recovery capability. Performing a BIA is not the responsibility of the IS auditor, but of the business owners and managers. Issuing an intermediate report to management may be premature without sufficient evidence and analysis. Conducting additional compliance testing may not be relevant ornecessary without a clear understanding of the disaster recovery requirements and objectives.

The lack of system documentation should be of most concern to an IS auditor reviewing the information systems acquisition, development, and implementation process. This is because system documentation is a vital source of information that describes the system’s purpose, functionality, design, architecture, testing, deployment, operation, and maintenance. System documentation helps the IS auditor to understand and evaluate the system’s quality, performance, security, compliance, and alignment with the business requirements and objectives. Without system documentation, the IS auditor may not be able to perform a thorough and effective audit of the system, aswell as identify any issues or risks that may affect the system’s reliability or integrity12.

Data owners are not trained on the use of data conversion tools is not the most concerning issue, although it may indicate a lack of user readiness or competence for the system implementation. Data conversion tools are software applications that help users to transform data from one format or structure to another, such as from legacy systems to new systems. Data owners are users who have the responsibility and authority to manage and control the data within their domain. Data owners should be trained on how to use data conversion tools to ensure that the data is accurately and securely transferred to the new system, as well as to avoid any data loss, corruption, or inconsistency. However, data owners are not the only users who need training for the system implementation, and data conversion tools are not the only tools that need training34.

A post-implementation lessons-learned exercise was not conducted is not the most concerning issue, although it may indicate a lack of continuous improvement or learning culture for the system development and implementation process. A post-implementation lessons-learned exercise is a meeting or a session that takes place after the completion of a system implementation project, where the project team and stakeholders discuss and document the successes and failures of the project, as well as identify any best practices or areas for improvement for future projects. Apost-implementation lessons-learned exercise can help to enhance the project management skills, knowledge, and performance of the project team and stakeholders, as well as to avoid repeating the same mistakes or problems in future projects56.

System deployment is routinely performed by contractors is not the most concerning issue, although it may pose some challenges or risks for the system implementation process. System deployment is the final stage of the system development life cycle (SDLC), where the system is installed and configured on the target environment and made available for use by end-users. System deployment can be performed by internal staff or external contractors, depending on the availability, expertise, and cost of resources. System deployment by contractors may offer some benefits such as faster delivery, lower cost, or higher quality than internal staff. However, system deployment by contractors mayalso introduce some risks such as loss of control, dependency, or security breaches over the system implementation process

A full interruption test is the most realistic and reliable way to ensure that recovery time objectives (RTOs) are met for an organization’s disaster recovery plan (DRP). RTOs are the maximum amount of time that a business can tolerate being offline after a disaster. A full interruption test involves shutting down the primary site and switching over to the backup site, simulating a real disaster scenario. This test can measure the actual time it takes to restore the systems, applications, and functions that are critical for the business continuity. A full interruption test can also reveal any issues or gaps in the DRP that might affect the recovery process.

The other options are not as effective as a full interruption test for ensuring RTOs are met. A cyber resilience test is a type of DR test that focuses on the ability to withstand and recover from cyberattacks. It does not necessarily cover other types of disasters or test the entire DRP. A tabletop test is a low-impact DR test that involves a walkthrough of the DRP with the key stakeholders and staff. It does not involve any actual switching over or testing of the backup systems. A parallel test is a type of DR test that involves running the backup systems alongside the primary systems, without disrupting the normal operations. It does not measure the time it takes to switch over or resume operations at the backup site.

When an employee exploits avulnerability, the most appropriate audit is aforensic audit, as it focuses oninvestigating and documenting security incidentsfor legal or disciplinary action.

Option A (Incorrect):Acompliance auditensures adherence to policies but does not investigate incidents in detail.

Option B (Incorrect):Application security testinghelps identify vulnerabilities but does not addressemployee misuse.

Option C (Correct):Aforensic auditgathersdigital evidence, determines how the exploit occurred, and ensures legal compliance in the investigation.

Option D (Incorrect):Penetration testingidentifies weaknesses but does notanalyze past incidents.

The most appropriate testing approach when auditing a daily data flow between two systems via an automated interface is to perform data reconciliation between the two systems for a sample of 25 days. Data reconciliation is a process of verifying that the data transferred from one system to another is complete and accurate, and that there are no discrepancies or errors in the data flow1. Data reconciliation can be performed by using generalized audit software, which is a type of computer-assisted audit technique (CAAT) that allows the IS auditor to perform various audit tasks on the data stored in different file formats and databases2. By performing data reconciliation for a sample of 25 days, the IS auditor can test the reliability and consistency of the data flow over a reasonable period of time, and identify any potential issues or anomalies that could affect the quality of the data or the functionality of the systems.

References

1: Data Flow Testing - GeeksforGeeks 2: Generalized Audit Software (GAS) - ISACA

A single point of failure is a component or system that, if it fails, will cause the entire system to stop functioning. In virtual environments, the hypervisor is the software layer that enables multiple virtual machines to run on a single physical host. If the hypervisor is compromised, corrupted, or unavailable, all the virtual machines running on that host will be affected. This can result in data loss, downtime, or security breaches.

References

ISACA CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 254

Virtualization: What are the security risks?

What Is a Hypervisor? (Definition, Types, Risks)

Continuous auditing provides the greatest assurance that a middleware application compiling data from multiple sales transaction databases for forecasting is operating effectively12. Continuous auditing involves the use of automated tools to continuously monitor and audit a system’s operations12. This allows for real-time identification and resolution of issues, ensuring that the system is always functioning as expected12. It also provides ongoing assurance about the integrity and reliability of the data being compiled by the middleware application12.

Outsourcing the audit to independent and qualified resources is the best course of action for the IS audit manager who was temporarily tasked with supervising a project manager assigned to the organization’s payroll application upgrade. This is because the IS audit manager has a potential conflict of interest and a threat to objectivity and independence, which are essential principles and standards for IS auditors.

According to the ISACA Code of Professional Ethics, IS auditors should maintain objectivity and independence in their professional judgment and avoid any situations that may impair or be presumed to impair their objectivity or independence1. Objectivity is the mental attitude of an IS auditor that allows them to perform their work honestly, impartially, and with integrity, while independence is the freedom from conditions that threaten the ability of an IS auditor to carry out their work in an unbiased manner2.

The IS audit manager who was involved in supervising the payroll application upgrade project may have a self-review threat, which is the risk that an IS auditor will not appropriately evaluate the results of a previous judgment made or service performed by them or their subordinates3. The IS audit manager may also have a familiarity threat, which is the risk that an IS auditor will be influenced by a close relationship with someone involved in the project or by their own personal interests4. These threats may compromise the IS audit manager’s objectivity and independence and affect the quality and credibility of the audit.

Therefore, the IS audit manager should disclose their involvement in the project to their senior management and the audit committee and decline to perform or manage the audit. The IS audit manager should also recommend outsourcing the audit to independent and qualified resources who have no connection or interest in the project and who have the necessary skills and experience to conduct a reliable and effective audit.

The other options are not the best course of action for the IS audit manager.

Transferring the assignment to a different audit manager despite lack of IT project management experience is not the best course of action because it may result in a low-quality audit that does not meet the expectations and standards of the stakeholders. IT project management experience is essential for auditing an IT project, as it requires knowledge of project management methodologies, tools, techniques, risks, and best practices. An audit manager who lacks IT project management experience may not be able to plan, execute, report, and follow up on the audit effectively and efficiently.

Managing the audit since there is no one else with the appropriate experience is not the best course of action because it violates the ethical principles and standards of objectivity and independence for IS auditors. Managing the audit would create a conflict of interest and a threat to objectivity and independence for the IS audit manager, as they would be reviewing their own work or that of their subordinate. Managing the audit would also undermine the credibility and reliability of the audit results and recommendations, as they may be biased or influenced by personal or professional relationships or interests.

Having a senior IS auditor manage the project with the IS audit manager performing final review is not the best course of action because it still involves the IS audit manager in the audit process, which poses a conflict of interest and a threat to objectivity and independence. Performing final review would require the IS audit manager to evaluate and approve the work done by the senior IS auditor, which may be affected by their previous involvement in or knowledge of the project. Performing final review would also expose theIS audit manager to undue pressure or influence from management or other stakeholders who may have expectations or preferences regarding the audit outcome.

 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

 Adequate action taken for noncompliance with the service level agreement (SLA) provides the best evidence that outsourced provider services are being properly managed. This shows that the organization is monitoring the performance of the provider and enforcing the terms of the SLA.

The other options are not as convincing as evidence of proper management. Option A, the SLA includes penalties for non-performance, is a good practice but does not guarantee that the penalties are actually applied or that the performance is satisfactory. Option C, the vendor provides historical data to demonstrate its performance, is not reliable because the data may be biased or inaccurate. Option D, internal performance standards align with corporate strategy, is irrelevant to the question of outsourced provider management.

The correct answer is D. Risks are identified in a timely manner because the main purpose of continuous auditing is to allow audit to evaluate risk and controls on a more frequent or ongoing basis, rather than relying only on periodic, retrospective audits. ISACA explains that continuous auditing enables internal auditors to report on subject matter within a much shorter time frame than traditional auditing and uses technology-based audit techniques to measure and report on risk indicators.

Option A is not the best answer because reviewing evidence for completeness and accuracy is part of audit work, but it is not the primary reason for implementing continuous auditing. Continuous auditing is broader than evidence checking; it is intended to improve the timeliness of risk and control assurance.

Option B is not the best answer because management awareness in real time is more closely associated with continuous monitoring, which is a management responsibility. ISACA specifically distinguishes continuous auditing from continuous monitoring: continuous monitoring is performed by management, while continuous auditing is performed by audit.

Option C is not correct because continuous auditing is not implemented primarily because it is incorporated into continuous monitoring. The two may use similar data or tools, but they have different owners and purposes.

This question maps mainly to Information Systems Auditing Process, because ISACA’s CISA Exam Content Outline includes audit planning, audit execution, audit evidence collection techniques, audit data analytics, reporting, communication, and quality improvement of the audit process under Domain 1.

 A threat actor is an entity or individual that poses a potential harm or danger to an organization’s information systems or data. Terminated staff are the threat actors in this scenario, as they are former employees who may still have active privileged accounts that grant them access to sensitive or critical information or resources of the organization. Terminated staff may abuse their access privileges or credentials to compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the information systems or data, either intentionally or unintentionally. Unauthorized access is a threat event or action that occurs when an unauthorized entity or individual gains access to an organization’s information systems or data without permission or authorization. Unauthorized access is not a threat actor, but rather a result of a threat actor’s activity. Deleted log data is a threat consequence or impact that occurs when log data, which are records of events or activities that occur on an information system or network, are erased or corrupted by a threat actor. Deleted log data can affect the auditability, accountability, and visibility of the information system or network, and prevent detection or investigation of security incidents. Deleted log data is not a threat actor, but rather a result of a threat actor’s activity. Hacktivists are threat actors who use hacking techniques to promote a political or social cause or agenda. Hacktivists are not the threat actors in this scenario, as there is no indication that they are involved in this case. 

This must be in place before an IS auditor initiates audit follow-up activities, because it indicates that management has acknowledged and accepted the audit findings and recommendations, and has agreed to take corrective actions within a specified timeframe. Audit follow-up activities are the processes and procedures that the IS auditor performs to verify that management has implemented the agreed-upon actions effectively and in a timely manner, and that the audit findings have been resolved or mitigated.

The other options are not required to be in place before an IS auditor initiates audit follow-up activities:

Available resources for the activities included in the action plan. This is a factor that may affect the feasibility and success of the action plan, but it is not a prerequisite for the audit follow-up activities. The IS auditor should assess the availability and adequacy of the resources for the action plan during the audit planning and execution phases, and provide recommendations accordingly. However, the IS auditor does not need to wait for the resources to be available before initiating the audit follow-up activities.

A heat map with the gaps and recommendations displayed in terms of risk. This is a tool that may help the IS auditor prioritize and communicate the gaps and recommendations, but it is not a requirement for the audit follow-up activities. A heat map is a graphical representation of data that uses colors to indicate the level of risk or impact of each gap or recommendation. The IS auditor may use a heat map to support the audit report or presentation, but it does not replace the need for a management response with a committed implementation date.

Supporting evidence for the gaps and recommendations mentioned in the audit report. This is a component that should be included in the audit report, but it is not a condition for the audit follow-up activities. Supporting evidence is the information or data that supports or substantiates the audit findings and recommendations. The IS auditor should collect and document sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful evidence during the audit execution phase, and present it in the audit report. However, the IS auditor does not need to have supporting evidence in place before initiating the audit follow-up activities.

A key performance indicator (KPI) is a quantifiable measure of performance over time for a specific objective1. KPIs help organizations and teams track their progress and achievements towards their strategic goals. To be useful, a KPI must have a target value, which is the desired level of performance or outcome that the organization or team aims to achieve. A target value provides a clear direction and a benchmark for measuring success or failure. Without a target value, a KPI is meaningless, as it does not indicate whether the performance is good or bad, or how far or close the organization or team is from reaching their objective.

 Audit observations are the findings and recommendations that result from an audit engagement. Audit observations should be first communicated with the auditee during fieldwork, which is the stage of the audit process where the auditor collects and analyzes evidence to evaluate the audit objectives1. Communicating audit observations during fieldwork has several benefits, such as2:

It allows the auditor to verify the accuracy and completeness of the observations, and to obtain additional information or clarification from the auditee if needed.

It enables the auditor to discuss the root causes, impacts, and risks of the observations, and to solicit the auditee’s input on possible corrective actions and implementation timelines.

It helps to build rapport and trust between the auditor and the auditee, and to avoid surprises or disagreements at the end of the audit.

It facilitates timely resolution of audit observations, and reduces the risk of audit delays or disputes.

Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

Option A is not correct because communicating audit observations when drafting the report is too late, as it may lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, or revisions that could have been avoided if the observations were communicated earlier. Option C is not correct because communicating audit observations at the end of fieldwork is also not ideal, as it may not leave enough time for the auditor and the auditee to discuss and agree on the observations and recommendations. Option D is not correct because communicating audit observations within the audit report is the final step of the audit process, not the first.

The primary responsibility of an IS auditor during the design phase of a software development project is to evaluate the controls incorporated into the system specifications. Controls aremechanisms or procedures that aim to ensure the security, reliability, or performance of a system or process. System specifications are documents that define and describe the requirements, features, functions, or components of a system or software. Evaluating the controls incorporated into the system specifications is a key responsibility of an IS auditor during the design phase of a software development project, as it helps ensure that the system or software meets the organization’s objectives, standards, and expectations for security, reliability, or performance. The other options are not primary responsibilities of an IS auditor during the design phase of a software development project, as they do not directly relate to evaluating the controls incorporated into the system specifications. Future compatibility of the application is a possible factor that may affect the functionality or usability of the application in different environments or platforms, but it is not a primary responsibility of an IS auditor during the design phase of a software development project. Proposed functionality of the application is a possible factor that may affect the suitability or value of the application for meeting user needs or expectations, but it is not a primary responsibility of an IS auditor during the design phase of a software development project. Development methodology employed is a possible factor that may affect the quality or consistency of the software development process, but it is not a primary responsibility of an IS auditor during the design phase of a software development project. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.3

Data classification is the first consideration when deciding whether data should be moved to a cloud provider for storage because it determines the level of protection and security required for the data. Data classification also helps to identify the legal and regulatory requirements that apply to the data, such as privacy, retention and disposal policies. Data storage costs, vendor cloud certification and service level agreements (SLAs) are important factors to consider, but they are secondary to data classification. References: CISAReview Manual (Digital Version) 1, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2

Segregation of duties (SOD) is a core internal control and an essential component of an effective risk management strategy. SOD emphasizes sharing the responsibilities of key business processesby distributing the discrete functions of these processes to multiple people and departments, helping to reduce the risk of possible errors and fraud1.

SOD is especially important in IT security, where granting excessive system access to one person or group can lead to harmful consequences, such as data breaches, identity theft, or bypassing security controls2. SOD breaks IT-related tasks into four separate function categories: authorization, custody, recordkeeping, and reconciliation1. Ideally, no one person or department holds responsibility in multiple categories.

In a role-based environment, where access privileges are granted based on predefined roles, it is important to ensure that the roles are designed and assigned in a way that supports SOD. For example, the person who develops an application should not also be the one who tests it, deploys it, or maintains it.

Therefore, an application developer should not be assigned the roles of IT operator, system administration, or database administration, as these roles may conflict with their development role and create opportunities for misuse or abuse of the system. The only role that may be assigned to an application developer without violating SOD is emergency support, which is a temporary role that allows the developer to access the system in case of a critical issue that requires immediate resolution3. However, even this role should be granted with caution and monitored closely to ensure compliance with SOD policies.

Reviewing input and output control reports to verify the accuracy of the system decisions is the most important procedure for the IS auditor to perform during the post-implementation review of intelligent-agent software for granting loans to customers, because it can help identify any errors or anomalies in the system logic or data that may affect the quality and reliability of the system outcomes. Reviewing systemand error logs, signed approvals, and systemdocumentation are also important procedures, but they are not as critical as verifying the accuracy of the system decisions. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.2.21

End-user computing (EUC) is a system in which users are able to create working applications besides the divided development process of design, build, test and release that is typically followed by software engineers1. Examples of EUC tools include spreadsheets, databases, low-code/no-code platforms, and generative AI applications2. EUC tools can provide flexibility, efficiency, and innovation for the users, but they also pose significant risks if not properly managed and controlled3.

The greatest risk when relying on reports generated by EUC is that the data may be inaccurate. Data accuracy refers to the extent to which the data in the reports reflect the true values of the underlying information4. Inaccurate data can lead to erroneous decisions, misleading analysis, unreliable reporting, and compliance violations. Some of the factors that can cause data inaccuracy in EUC reports are:

Lack of rigorous testing: EUC tools may not undergo the same level of testing and validation as IT-developed applications, which can result in errors, bugs, or inconsistencies in the data processing and output3.

Lack of version and change control: EUC tools may not have a clear record of the changes made to them over time, which can create confusion, duplication, or loss of data. Users may also modify or overwrite the data without proper authorization or documentation3.

Lack of documentation and reliance on end-user who developed it: EUC tools may not have sufficient documentation to explain their purpose, functionality, assumptions, limitations, and dependencies. Users may also rely on the knowledge and expertise of the original developer, who may not be available or may not have followed best practices3.

Lack of maintenance processes: EUC tools may not have regular updates, backups, or reviews to ensure their functionality and security. Users may also neglect to delete or archive obsolete or redundant data3.

Lack of security: EUC tools may not have adequate access controls, encryption, or authentication mechanisms to protect the data from unauthorized access, modification, or disclosure. Users may also store or share the data in insecure locations or devices3.

Lack of audit trail: EUC tools may not have a traceable history of the data sources, inputs, outputs, calculations, and transformations. Users may also manipulate or falsify the data without detection or accountability3.

Overreliance on manual controls: EUC tools may depend on human intervention to input, verify, or correct the data, which can introduce errors, delays, or biases. Users may also lack the skills or training to use the EUC tools effectively and efficiently3.

The other options are not as great as data inaccuracy when relying on EUC reports. Reports may not work efficiently, reports may not be timely, and historical data may not be available are all potential risks associated with EUC tools, but they are less severe and less frequent than data inaccuracy. Moreover, these risks can be mitigated by improving the performance, scheduling, and storage of the EUC tools. However, data inaccuracy can have a pervasive and lasting impact on the quality and credibility of the reports and the decisions based on them. Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

To ensure that aservice vendor maintains required control levels, direct verification throughonsite assessmentsis the most effective approach.

Option A (Correct):Onsite assessmentsallow auditors todirectly reviewcontrols, procedures, and evidence of compliancein real time, ensuring that service levels are being met.

Option B (Incorrect):Unannounced vulnerability assessments may violatecontractual agreementsand ethical considerations.

Option C (Incorrect):Reviewing theSLAensures agreement terms are clear but doesnot verify actual compliance.

Option D (Incorrect):AControl Self-Assessment (CSA)is useful but relies onvendor-provided information, which may be biased or incomplete.

Maintaining an onboarding and annual security awareness program is the best way to prevent social engineering incidents because it can educate the users about the common techniques and tactics used by social engineers and how to avoid falling victim to them. Ensuring user workstations are running the most recent version of antivirus software, including security responsibilities in job descriptions and requiring signed acknowledgment, and enforcing strict email security gateway controls are all good security practices, but they do not directly address the human factor that is exploited by social engineering. References:

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2020, p. 3671

ISACA, CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription2

The greatest concern for an IS auditor evaluating the access controls for a shared customer relationship management (CRM) system is that audit logging is not enabled. Audit logging is a process that records and tracks the activities and events that occur on a system, such as who accessed what data, when, how, and why. Audit logging can help monitor and verify the compliance and effectiveness of the access controls, as well as detect and investigate any unauthorized or suspicious access or actions. Audit logging can also provide evidence and accountability for the security and integrity of the system and the data.

Without audit logging, the IS auditor would not be able to audit the access controls for the shared CRM system, as there would be no reliable or traceable records of the access history or patterns. Without audit logging, the organization would also not be able to identify or respond to any potential breaches or incidents that may compromise the confidentiality, availability, or accuracy of the CRM data. Without audit logging, the organization would also not be able to demonstrate or prove itscompliance with any applicable policies, regulations, or standards that may require audit logging for CRM systems.

Single sign-on is not enabled is not a great concern for an IS auditor evaluating the access controls for a shared CRM system, but rather a potential improvement or enhancement. Single sign-on is a process that allows users to access multiple systems or applications with one set of credentials, such as a username and password. Single sign-on can help simplify and streamline the user experience, as well as reduce the risk of password fatigue or compromise. However, single sign-on is not a mandatory or essential requirement for access controls, and it may also introduce some challenges or risks, such as dependency on a single point of failure or vulnerability.

Security baseline is not consistently applied is not a great concern for an IS auditor evaluating the access controls for a shared CRM system, but rather a minor issue or gap. Security baseline is a set of minimum security standards or requirements that apply to a system or application, such as password policies, encryption protocols, or firewall rules. Security baseline can help ensure that the system or application meets a certain level of security and compliance. However, security baseline is not a sufficient or comprehensive measure for access controls, and it may also need to be customized or adjusted according to the specific needs and risks of each system or application.

Complex passwords are not required is not a great concern for an IS auditor evaluating the access controls for a shared CRM system, but rather a common practice or recommendation. Complex passwords are passwords that are composed of a combination of different types of characters, such as letters, numbers, symbols, and cases. Complex passwords can help prevent or deter brute-force attacks or guessing attempts by making the passwords harder to crack or predict. However, complex passwords are not a guarantee or guarantee of security, and they may also have some drawbacks or limitations, such as user inconvenience, memorability issues, or reuse across multiple systems or applications.

The best recommendation to improve IT governance within the organization is C. Require executive management to draft IT strategy. IT governance is the process of establishing and maintaining the policies, roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities for managing technology risks within an organization1. One of the key objectives of IT governance is to ensure alignment and integration between technology and business strategies, leading to optimal outcomes and value creation1. Therefore, it is essential that executive management, who are responsible for setting the vision, mission, and goals of the organization, are also involved in drafting the IT strategy that supports and enables them. By requiring executive management to draft IT strategy, the organization can:

Ensure that the IT strategy is consistent and coherent with the business strategy, and reflects the organization’s priorities, values, and culture2.

Enhance communication and collaboration between IT and business functions, and foster a shared understanding and commitment to the IT strategy2.

Increase accountability and transparency for IT performance and outcomes, and ensure that IT investments are aligned with the organization’s risk appetite and value proposition2.

A project business case is a document that describes the rationale and justification for initiating a project, based on its expected costs, benefits, risks, and feasibility. A project business case provides the most useful information to an IS auditor when selecting projects for inclusion in an IT audit plan, because it helps the IS auditor to:

Understand the purpose, scope, objectives, and deliverables of the project

Assess the alignment of the project with the organization’s strategy, vision, and goals

Evaluate the value proposition and return on investment of the project

Identify the key stakeholders, sponsors, and owners of the project

Analyze the potential risks and issues associated with the project

Compare and prioritize the project with other competing projects

The other possible options are:

A. Project charter: A project charter is a document that formally authorizes and defines the high-level scope, roles, responsibilities, and authority of a project. A project charter provides some useful information to an IS auditor when selecting projects for inclusion in an IT audit plan, but it is not the most useful information. A project charter does not provide enough details about the costs, benefits, risks, and feasibility of the project, which are essential for evaluating its suitability for an IT audit plan.

B. Project plan: A project plan is a document that outlines the detailed scope, schedule, budget, resources, quality, and communication plans of a project. A project plan provides some useful information to an IS auditor when selecting projects for inclusion in an IT audit plan, but it is not the most useful information. A project plan does not provide enough information about the rationale, justification, value proposition, and alignment of the project with the organization’s strategy and goals, which are important for assessing its relevance for an IT audit plan.

C. Project issue log: A project issue log is a document that records and tracks the issues that arise during a project’s execution and how they are resolved. A project issue log provides some useful information to an IS auditor when selecting projects for inclusion in an IT audit plan, but it is not the most useful information. A project issue log does not provide enough information about the purpose, objectives, benefits, and feasibility of the project, which are critical for determining its priority for an IT audit plan.

 The auditor’s best course of action when senior management disagrees with some of the facts presented in the draft audit report is to gather evidence to analyze senior management’s objections. The auditor should not revise the assessment, escalate the issue, or finalize the report without changes until they have evaluated the validity and relevance of senior management’s objections and resolved any discrepancies or misunderstandings. The auditor should maintain a professional and objective attitude and seek to present a fair and accurate audit report based on sufficient and appropriate evidence. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), page 372

CISA Questions,Answers and Explanations Database, question ID 3338

The most important factor to ensure when developing an effective security awareness program is B. Outcome metrics for the program are established. This is because outcome metrics are measures that evaluate the impact and results of the security awareness program on the behavior and performance of the users, and the security posture and objectives of the organization1. Outcome metrics can help ensure the effectiveness of the security awareness program by:

Providing feedback and evidence on whether the security awareness program is achieving its goals and expectations, such as reducing the number of incidents, improving the compliance rate, or increasing the reporting rate1.

Identifying and quantifying the strengths and weaknesses of the security awareness program, and enabling continuous improvement and optimization of the program content, delivery, and frequency1.

Demonstrating and communicating the value and return on investment of the security awareness program to the stakeholders and management, and securing their support and commitment for the program1.

The best way to validate that appropriate security controls are in place to prevent data loss is to review compliance with data loss and applicable mobile device user acceptance policies. This will ensure that the organization has established clear rules and guidelines for employees to follow when connecting their personal devices to company-owned computers. A walk-through, a DLP tool configuration, and a security awareness training are not sufficient to validate the effectiveness of the controls, as they may not cover all possible scenarios and risks. References: IT Audit Fundamentals Certificate Resources

The best compensating control is performing a bank reconciliation. Duplicate payments are a financial processing error that results in overpayment or duplicate disbursement. ISACA materials explicitly cite duplicate payments as an example of information errors that create cost risk. A bank reconciliation is the best compensating detective control among the choices because it helps identify duplicate disbursements by comparing recorded payments with actual bank activity.

Option B is correct because reconciliation is the control most likely to detect that a payment was processed twice. Once identified, management can investigate and recover the erroneous payment.

Option A is not the best answer because hash totals are generally used to verify data integrity of fields, not to compensate for duplicate payment processing.

Option D is also not the best answer because control totals can help identify completeness or reasonableness during batch processing, but they are less directly effective at detecting duplicate disbursements already posted through an online payment process.

Option C is weak because manual receipting of payments does not directly address duplication of outbound payments.

Therefore, B is the best answer because bank reconciliation is the most effective compensating control among the options for detecting duplicate payment errors. The exact match to this exam-style question is based on standard CISA control reasoning, with ISACA support that duplicate payments are a recognized cost-risk example.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA Journal, A Framework for Estimating ROI of Automated Internal Controls — cites duplicate payments and overpayments as examples of cost risk caused by information errors.

ISACA training and audit fundamentals resources — support the use of detective and compensating controls in audit practice.

 Resilience is the ability of an organization to continue to operate effectively during or after a disruptive event. A business impact analysis (BIA) is a key process to identify the critical systems and processes that support the organization’s objectives and determine the impact of their disruption. Without a BIA, the organization may not be able to prioritize the recovery of the most important systems and processes, which poses the greatest risk to its resilience. The other options are not as significant as a BIA, as they relate to data quality, system monitoring, and user acceptance testing, which are important but not essential for resilience. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Domain 4: Information Systems Operations and Business Resilience, Section 4.2 Business Continuity Planning1

A privacy protection policy is primarily intended to make personnel aware of the organization’s responsibilities and rules for handling personal information in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and contractual obligations. ISACA privacy guidance consistently frames privacy as a compliance-driven and accountability-driven discipline, centered on the proper collection, use, storage, sharing, and protection of personal data under applicable legal requirements.

Option C is therefore the best answer because a privacy policy’s core purpose is not just technical protection, but ensuring that employees understand the legal and regulatory requirements governing personal information. ISACA notes that modern privacy programs are strongly shaped by regulations such as GDPR and similar laws, which impose explicit obligations on organizations that collect and process personal data. A privacy protection policy helps communicate those obligations internally.

Option A is incorrect because cybercrime awareness belongs more to a general information security awareness program than to the primary purpose of a privacy protection policy. Privacy and cybersecurity overlap, but privacy policy is specifically about lawful and proper handling of personal information, not general awareness of network-targeting crimes.

Option B is incorrect because encryption is only one possible control for protecting personal data. A privacy policy may mention encryption, but its primary purpose is broader: defining privacy obligations, rights, responsibilities, and compliance expectations. Technical controls support the policy; they are not the policy’s central awareness objective.

Option D is also incorrect because system configuration procedures belong to technical standards, baselines, or operating procedures. A privacy protection policy is a governance-level document that sets expectations regarding personal information protection and legal compliance, rather than detailing system configuration steps.

For CISA-style reasoning, when a question asks for the primary objective of a privacy policy, the best answer is the one that addresses the organization’s obligation to protect personal data in accordance with legal requirements. That makes C the strongest and most defensible answer.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA Privacy Resource Center — privacy guidance focused on compliance and privacy program obligations.

ISACA, The Evolving World of Data Privacy: Trends and Strategies — discusses legal obligations such as GDPR requirements for personal data protection.

ISACA Privacy Notice — reflects the role of applicable law in handling personal data.

ISACA Journal, Creating a Compliant and Accountable Data Culture — emphasizes accountability and compliance in data privacy.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

An integrated audit merges financial, operational, compliance, and IT audits into a single coordinated review. The key benefit is leveraging a multidisciplinary team with combined skill sets, resulting in a more holistic evaluation of risks and controls.

Option A: Business reviews are important but not the primary benefit.

Option B: Continuous auditing is a separate methodology.

Option C: Better review by team leaders may occur, but that’s not unique to integrated audits.

Option D: Correct — the main advantage is combining diverse audit expertise.

???? ISACA Reference: CISA Review Manual 27th Edition, Domain 1, section on integrated audits and multidisciplinary audit approaches.

 Using a continuous auditing module is an audit procedure that would provide the best assurance that an application program is functioning as designed. A continuous auditing module is a software tool that performs automated and continuous testing and monitoring of an application program’s inputs, outputs, processes, and controls. A continuous auditing module can help to verify the accuracy, completeness, validity, reliability, and timeliness of the application program’s data and transactions. A continuous auditing module can also help to identify and report any errors, anomalies, deviations, or exceptions in the application program’s performance or compliance.

The other options are not as effective or relevant as using a continuous auditing module for providing assurance that an application program is functioning as designed. Interviewing business management is a technique for obtaining information and opinions from the users or owners of the application program, but it does not directly test or verify the functionality or quality of the application program. Confirming accounts is a technique for verifying the existence and accuracy of account balances or transactions, but it does not necessarily reflect the design or operation of the application program. Reviewing program documentation is a technique for examining the specifications,requirements, and procedures of the application program, but it does not provide evidence of the actual implementation or execution of the application program.

Disabling operational logging compromises critical functions such as security monitoring, troubleshooting, and compliance reporting. Logs are essential for tracking system activities, identifying anomalies, and conducting forensic investigations in case of incidents. Enhancing processing speed and saving storage should not come at the cost of reducing logging, as this increases security risks and weakens the organization ' s ability to detect and respond to threats.

Adopting a Peer-Inspired Service Delivery Model (Option B):This might pose risks if not customized for the organization ' s context, but it is not as critical as the loss of operational logging.

Delegating Business Decisions to the CRO (Option C):While unconventional, this does not inherently introduce risks to IT service delivery unless operational control issues arise.

Eliminating Reports and KPIs (Option D):This could hinder performance tracking but does not compromise operational security as severely as disabling logging.

Operational logging is foundational to maintaining security, reliability, and accountability in IT environments.