Pass the Isaca Isaca Certification CISA Questions and answers with CertsForce

Comprehensive and Detailed in-Depth Explanation:

A passive attack involves monitoring or listening without altering data or system operations. Eavesdropping is a classic example, where attackers intercept data without affecting the transmission.

Keystroke logging (Option A) and phishing (Option D) are active attacks. Piggybacking (Option B) involves unauthorized access and is also active.

ISACA CISA Reference: Domain 5 - Protection of Information Assets

The best course of action for an IS auditor who finds that some critical recommendations have not been implemented is to evaluate senior management’s acceptance of the risk. The IS auditor should understand the reasons why the recommendations have not been implemented and the implications for the organization’s risk exposure. The IS auditor should also verify that senior management has formally acknowledged and accepted the residual risk and has documented the rationale and justification for their decision. The IS auditor should communicate the findings and the risk acceptance to the audit committee and other relevant stakeholders. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

CISA Questions, Answers and Explanations Database

The best method for maintaining the security of corporate applications pushed to employee-owned mobile devices is implementing mobile device management (MDM). MDM is a software solution that allows an organization to remotely manage, configure, and secure the mobile devices that access its network and data. MDM can help protect corporate applications on employee-owned devices by:

Enforcing security policies and settings, such as encryption, password, firewall, antivirus, and VPN.

Controlling the installation, update, and removal of corporate applications and data.

Separating corporate and personal data and applications on the device using containers or profiles.

Monitoring and auditing the device’s compliance status, activity, and location.

Performing remote actions, such as lock, wipe, backup, or restore, in case of loss, theft, or compromise.

MDM can provide a comprehensive and centralized approach to maintain the security of corporate applications on employee-owned devices, regardless of the device type, platform, or ownership. MDM can also help the organization comply with regulatory and industry standards for data protection and privacy.

Enabling remote data destruction capabilities is a useful feature for maintaining the security of corporate applications on employee-owned devices, but it is not the best method by itself. Remote data destruction allows the organization to erase the corporate data and applications from the device in case of loss, theft, or compromise. However, this feature does not prevent unauthorized access or misuse of the corporate data and applications before they are destroyed. Remote data destruction is usually part of an MDM solution.

Disabling unnecessary network connectivity options is a good practice for maintaining the security of corporate applications on employee-owned devices,but it is not the best method by itself. Network connectivity options, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or USB, can expose the device to potential attacks or data leakage. Disabling these options when they are not needed can reduce the attack surface and improve battery life. However, this practice does not address other security risks or requirements for the corporate applications on the device. Disabling network connectivity options can also be part of an MDM solution.

Requiring security awareness training for mobile users is an important measure for maintaining the security of corporate applications on employee-owned devices, but it is not the best method by itself. Security awareness training can educate the users about the potential threats and best practices for using their devices securely. It can also help foster a culture of security and responsibility among the users. However, security awareness training cannot guarantee that the users will follow the security policies and guidelines consistently and correctly. Security awareness training should be complemented by technical controls, such as MDM.

The most assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing with respect to the implementation of a new system can be obtained by running historical transactions through the new system. Historical transactions are transactions that have been processed and recorded by the old system in the past. Running historical transactions through the new system can provide the most assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing, bycomparing the results and outputs of the new system with those of the old system, and verifying whether they match or differ. This can help identify and resolve any errors or issues that may arise from the new system, such as data conversion, functionality, compatibility, etc. Comparing code between old and new systems is a possible way to obtain some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing with respect to the implementation of a new system, but it is not the most effective one. Code is a set of instructions or commands that define how a system operates or functions. Comparing code between old and new systems can provide some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing, by checking whether the logic, algorithms, or functions of the new system are consistent or equivalent with those of the old system. However, this may not be sufficient or reliable, as code may not reflect the actual performance or outcomes of the system, and may not detect any errors or issues that may occur at the data or user level. Reviewing quality assurance (QA) procedures is a possible way to obtain some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing with respect to the implementation of a new system, but it is not the most effective one. QA procedures are steps or activities that ensure that a system meets its quality standards and requirements, such as testing, verification, validation, etc. Reviewing QA procedures can provide some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing, by evaluating whether the new system has been properly tested and verified before implementation. However, this may not be adequate or accurate, as QA procedures may not cover all aspects or scenarios of loan application processing, and may not reveal any errors or issues that may arise after implementation. Loading balance and transaction data to the new system is a possible way to obtain some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing with respect to the implementation of a new system, but it is not the most effective one. Balance and transaction data are data that reflect the status and history of loan applications in a system, such as amounts, dates, payments, etc. Loading balance and transaction data to the new system can provide some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing, by transferring data from the old system to the new system and ensuring that they are consistent and correct. However, this may not be enough or valid, as balance and transaction data may not represent all aspects or features of loan application processing, and may not indicate any errors or issues that may arise

The authority given to the audit function is one of the components that is found in an audit charter. According to the IIA, the audit charter is a formal document that defines internal audit’s purpose, authority, responsibility and position within the organization1. The authority given to the audit function includes the scope of its activities, the access to records, personnel and physical properties relevant to its work, and the independence and objectivity of its staff2. The authority given to the audit function helps to ensure that internal auditors can perform their duties effectively and efficiently, and that they can provide assurance and consulting services that add value and improve the organization’s operations3.

The other options are not found in an audit charter. The process of developing the annual audit plan is not part of the audit charter, but rather a separate document that outlines the methodology, criteria and resources for selecting and prioritizing audit engagements based on a risk assessment4. Required training for audit staff is not part of the audit charter, but rather a component of the quality assurance and improvement program that evaluates the competence and performance of internal auditors and provides them with opportunities for professional development5. Audit objectives and scope are not part of the audit charter, but rather specific elements of each individual audit engagement that define the expected outcomes and the boundaries of the audit work.

The IS auditor’s best recommendation is to ensure that programmers cannot access code after the completion of program edits. This is because programmers who have access to code after editing may introduce unauthorized or malicious changes that could compromise the security, functionality, or performance of the application. By restricting access to code after editing, the organization can ensure that only authorized and tested code is released into production, and prevent any tampering or reoccurrence of the same issue.

The auditor’s primary course of action is to evaluate the impact of the partial compliance. When a control is only partially operating as designed, the auditor must first assess significance: what risk remains, what objectives are affected, and whether the deviation is material enough to become a reportable finding. ISACA audit and follow-up guidance emphasizes capturing and following up on significant issues and deficiencies, which implies the need for impact evaluation before deciding on reporting or recommendations.

Option B is correct because evaluating impact is what determines the seriousness of the deficiency and the appropriate audit response. Without understanding the effect of the deviation, the auditor cannot appropriately decide whether to escalate it, report it, or recommend redesign.

Option C is important and usually happens during audit communication, but discussion with control owners is not the primary analytical step. The auditor must first understand the risk and significance of the partial compliance.

Option D is incorrect because not every partial deviation should automatically become a final-report finding. The auditor should first evaluate whether the issue is significant and reportable. ISACA follow-up guidance specifically refers to significant issues/findings.

Option A is also incorrect because recommending redesign may be appropriate later, but only after the auditor understands the impact and whether the problem is design-related, operating-related, or user-adoption-related.

Therefore, B is the best answer because impact evaluation comes before escalation, formal reporting, or redesign recommendations.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA Journal, Enhancing the Audit Follow-up Process Using COBIT 5 — significant issues/findings should be captured and followed up.

ISACA Journal, An Approach Toward Sarbanes-Oxley ITGC Risk Assessment — supports a risk-based evaluation approach focused on control process areas.

ISACA, How Effective Is Your Cybersecurity Audit — effectiveness depends on evaluating gaps and their implications.

If an auditor implemented a control, they would later be reviewing their own work, which creates a self-review threat and compromises independence. Participating in the project without operational responsibilities (B) or providing advice (C) is acceptable as long as the auditor does not take ownership of decisions. Designing audit modules (D) is also permissible since they are for audit use and do not affect operational processes. ISACA’s Code of Professional Ethics and IS Audit Standards emphasize independence and objectivity as fundamental requirements to maintain credibility and avoid conflicts of interest.

References (ISACA): ISACA Standards for IS Audit and Assurance; ISACA Code of Professional Ethics.

Ifmeasurable benefitswerenot defined, the organizationcannot assess whether the system achieved its intended goals, making it the mostcriticalissue.

Measurable Benefits Not Defined (Correct Answer – D)

No clear KPIs or success metricsmeans no way toevaluate ROI.

Example:A company implementsan ERP systembut has no performance indicators to measure success.

No Lessons Learned (Incorrect – A)

Important but doesnot impact system effectiveness.

Missing Dashboard Deliverables (Incorrect – B)

A reporting issue,not a strategic failure.

Budget Overrun (Incorrect – C)

A financial concern butnot as critical as system success measurement.

An application’s audit trail is a record of all actions or events that occur within or affect an application, such as user activities, system operations, data changes, errors, exceptions, etc. An audit trail can provide evidence and accountability for an application’s functionality and performance, and support auditing, monitoring, troubleshooting, and investigation purposes. An IS auditor should ensure that an application’s audit trail has adequate security, which means that it is protected from unauthorized access, modification, deletion, or disclosure. Adequate security can help ensure that an audit trail maintains its integrity, reliability, and availability, and prevents tampering or manipulation by attackers or insiders who want to hide their tracks or evidence of their actions. Logs all database records is a possible feature of an application’s audit trail, but it is not the most important thing for an IS auditor to ensure, as logging all database records may not be necessary or feasible for some applications, and may generate excessive or irrelevant data that can affect the storage or analysis of the audit trail. Is accessible online is a possible feature of an application’s audit trail, but it is not the most important thing for an IS auditor to ensure, as online accessibility may not be required or desirable for some applications, and may introduce security or privacy risks for the audit trail. Does not impact operational efficiency is a desirable outcome of an application’s audit trail, but it is not the most important thing for an IS auditor to ensure, as operational efficiency may not be the primary objective or concern of an application’s audit trail, and may depend on other factors or trade-offs such as storage capacity, performance speed, or data quality. 

ACloud Access Security Broker (CASB)ensuresvisibility, compliance, and securityof cloud applications, andmonitoring data movementis the key to detecting threats.

Option A (Correct):Monitoring data movementallows organizations todetect and preventunauthorized access, data exfiltration, and cloud-based threats.

Option B (Incorrect):Along-term contractdoes not inherentlyimprove security monitoring.

Option C (Incorrect):Reviewing policies helps withgovernance, but it does notactively detect threats.

Option D (Incorrect):Firewallsprotectnetwork perimeters, while CASBs focus oncloud security, making this anineffective measurefor CASB threat detection.

The best course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit is to evaluate the residual risk due to open issues. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of controls or mitigating actions. Evaluating the residual risk due to open issues can help the IS auditor assess the impact and likelihood of the potential threats and vulnerabilities that have not been addressed by the auditee, as well as the adequacy and effectiveness of the existing controls or mitigating actions. Evaluating the residual risk due to open issues can also help the IS auditor prioritize and communicate the open issues to the auditee and other stakeholders, such as senior management or audit committee, and recommend appropriate actions or escalation procedures.

Ensuring the open issues are retained in the audit results is a course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit, but it is not the best one. Ensuring the open issues are retained in the audit results can help the IS auditor document and report the status and progress of the audit recommendations, as well as provide a basis for future follow-up audits. However, ensuring the open issues are retained in the audit results does not provide an analysis or evaluation of the residual risk due to open issues, which is more important for informing decision-making and action-taking.

Terminating the follow-up because open issues are not resolved is not a course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit, but rather a consequence or outcome of it. Terminating the follow-up because open issues are not resolved may indicate that the auditee has failed to comply with the agreed-upon actions or deadlines, or that the IS auditor has encountered significant obstacles or resistance from the auditee. Terminating the follow-up because open issues are not resolved may also trigger further actions or sanctions from the IS auditor or other authorities, such as issuing a qualified or adverse opinion, withholding certification, or imposing penalties.

Recommending compensating controls for open issues is not a course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit, but rather a possible outcome or result of it. Compensating controls are alternative or additional controls that are implemented to reduce or eliminate the risk associated with a weakness or deficiency in another control. Recommending compensating controls for open issues may be appropriate when the auditee is unable to implement the original audit recommendations due to technical, operational,financial, or other constraints, and when the compensating controls can provide a similar or equivalent level of assurance. However, recommending compensating controls for open issues requires a prior evaluation of the residual risk due to open issues, which is more important for determining whether compensating controls are necessary and feasible.

 Enterprise architecture (EA) is the most helpful to an IS auditor reviewing the alignment of planned IT budget with the organization’s goals and strategic objectives. EA is a well-defined practice for conducting enterprise analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a comprehensive approach at all times, for the successful development and execution of strategy1. EA provides a blueprint for an effective IT strategy and guides the controlled evolution of IT in a way that delivers business benefit in a cost-effective way2. By reviewing the EA, the IS auditor can evaluate how well the planned IT budget supports the business vision, strategy, objectives, and capabilities of the organization.

The other options are not as helpful as EA for reviewing the alignment of planned IT budget with the organization’s goals and strategic objectives. BIA is a process of determining the criticality of business activities and associated resource requirements to ensure operational resilience and continuity of operations during and after a business disruption3. BIA quantifies the impacts of disruptions on service delivery, risks to service delivery, and recovery time objectives (RTOs) and recovery point objectives (RPOs)3. BIA is useful for developing strategies, solutions, and plans for business continuity and disaster recovery, but it does not directly address the alignment of planned IT budget with the organization’s goals and strategic objectives. Risk assessment report is a document that contains the results of performing a risk assessment or the formal output from the process of assessing risk4. Risk assessment is a method to identify, analyze, and control hazards and risks present in a situation or a place5. Risk assessment report is useful for identifying and mitigating potential threats and issues that are detrimental to the business or an enterprise, but it does not directly addressthe alignment of planned IT budget with the organization’s goals and strategic objectives. Audit recommendations are guidance that highlights actions to be taken by management6. When implemented, process risks should be mitigated, and performance should be enhanced6. Audit recommendations are useful for improving the quality and reliability of the information system and its outputs, but they do not directly address the alignment of planned IT budget with the organization’s goals and strategic objectives. Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

The best way to determine whether programmers have permission to alter data in the production environment is by reviewing the access rights that have been granted. Access rights are permissions or privileges that define what actions or operations a user can perform on an information system or resource. By reviewing the access rights that have been granted to programmers, an IS auditor can verify whether they have been authorized to modify data in the production environment, which is where live data and applications are stored and executed. The access control system’s log settings are parameters that define what events or activities are recorded by the access control system, which is a system that enforces the access rights and policies of an information system or resource. The access control system’s log settings are not the best way to determine whether programmers have permission to alter data in the production environment, as they do not indicate what permissions or privileges have been granted to programmers. How the latest system changes were implemented is a process that describes how software updates or modifications are deployed to the production environment. How the latest system changes were implemented is not the best way to determine whether programmers have permission to alter data in the production environment, as it does not indicate what permissions or privileges have been granted to programmers. The access control system’s configuration is a set of rules or parameters that define how the access control system operates and functions. The access control system’s configuration is not the best way to determine whether programmers have permission to alter data in the production environment, as it does not indicate what permissions or privileges have been granted to programmers. 

The best answer is A. There are shared administrator accounts on internet-facing routers.

Shared administrator accounts on internet-facing devices create a serious accountability, access control, and security exposure. ISACA access-control guidance stresses that access should be individually justified, authorized, logged, and monitored. Shared privileged accounts undermine attribution and make it much harder to determine who performed a change or malicious action. On internet-facing routers, this becomes especially serious because those devices sit at the network boundary and can be targeted directly.

Option B is a concern, but a test web page in the DMZ is usually less severe than weak privileged access on perimeter infrastructure. Option C and D both mention updates from within the last week. That timing matters: while prompt patching is important, the absence of updates released only last week is generally less risky than shared privileged accounts on external-facing network devices, especially when emergency testing and staged deployment may still be underway. ISACA patch guidance emphasizes risk assessment and testing before deployment.

Therefore, the correct answer is A, because shared privileged accounts on internet-facing routers present the greatest immediate security and audit risk.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA, Audit Programs and Tools – Identity and Access Management Audit Program — access should be justified, authorized, logged, and monitored.

ISACA Journal, Selected COBIT 5 Processes for Essential Enterprise Security — supports strong identity and access governance. (Referenced through prior aligned ISACA IAM principles.)

ISACA Journal, Addressing Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities — patching and vulnerability management must be risk-based and timely.

ISACA, Protecting SAP Systems in the Cybersecurity Era — patch management should include risk and applicability assessment before deployment.

The greatest indicator that the cybersecurity policy may need to be revised is a significant increase in approved exceptions. This implies that the policy is not aligned with the current business needs and risks, and that it may be too restrictive or outdated. The other options are not necessarily indicators of a need for policy revision, as they may be due to other factors such as changes in the externalenvironment, audit scope or methodology. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.21

The primary objective of an IS auditor when reviewing the installation of a new server is to ensure that security parameters are set in accordance with the organization’s policies. Security parameters are settingsor options that control the security level and behavior of the server, such as authentication methods, encryption algorithms, access rights, audit logs, firewall rules, or password policies7. The organization’s policies are documents that define the security goals, requirements, standards, and guidelines for the organization’s information systems. An IS auditor should verify that security parameters are set in accordance with the organization’s policies to ensure that the new server complies with the organization’s security expectations and regulations. The other options are less important or incorrect because:

A. Security parameters should not be set in accordance with the manufacturer’s standards alone, as they may not reflect the organization’s specific security needs and environment. The manufacturer’s standards are general recommendations or best practices for configuring the server’s security parameters based on common scenarios and threats. An IS auditor should compare the manufacturer’s standards with the organization’s policies and identify any gaps or conflicts that need to be resolved.

B. A detailed business case should have been formally approved prior to the purchase of a new server rather than during its installation. A business case is a document that justifies the need for a new server based on its expected benefits, costs, risks, and alternatives. A business case should be approved by senior management before initiating a project to acquire a new server.

D. The procurement project should have invited tenders from at least three different suppliers before purchasing a new server rather than during its installation. A tender is a formal offer or proposal to provide a product or service at a specified price and quality. Inviting tenders from multiple suppliers helps to ensure a fair and competitive procurement process that can result in the best value for money and quality for the organization. References: Server Security - ISACA, [Information Security Policy - ISACA], [Server Hardening - ISACA] , [Business Case - ISACA], [Tender - ISACA] , [Procurement Management - ISACA]

 The greatest concern associated with a high number of IT policy exceptions approved by management is that the exceptions may result in noncompliance. IT policy exceptions are deviations from the established IT policies that are granted by management for specific reasons and circumstances. However, if there are too many exceptions, it may indicate that the IT policies are not aligned with the business needs, regulatory requirements, or best practices. This may expose the organization to legal, contractual, or reputational risks due to noncompliance. The other options are not as concerning as noncompliance, as they do not have the same potential impact or consequences. The exceptions are likely to continue indefinitely is a possible outcome of a high number of exceptions, but it does not necessarily imply a negative effect on the organization. The exceptions may elevate the level of operational risk is a valid concern, but it can be mitigated by implementing compensating controls or monitoring mechanisms. The exceptions may negatively impact process efficiency is a minor concern, as it does not affect the effectiveness or reliability of the IT processes. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

 The best way to reduce the immediate risk associated with using an unsupported version of the software is to segregate the outdated software system from the main network. This will limit the exposure of the system to potential attacks and prevent it from compromising other systems on the network. Segregating the system will also reduce the impact of any security incidents that may occur on the system.

Monitoring network traffic attempting to reach the outdated software system (option C) is not the best way to reduce the risk, as it will not prevent or stop any attacks on the system. It will only provide visibility into the network activity and alert the auditee of any suspicious or malicious traffic.

Verifying all patches have been applied to the software system’s outdated version (option A) and closing all unused ports on the outdated software system (option B) are also not the best ways to reduce the risk, as they will not address the underlying issue of using an unsupported version of the software. Patches and ports may still have vulnerabilities that are not fixed by the vendor, and attackers may exploit them to gain access to the system.

Therefore, option D is the correct answer.

 Periodic review of access profiles by management is an additional control that is required when using swipe cards to limit employee access to restricted areas. Swipe cards are a type of physical access control that use magnetic stripes or radio frequency identification (RFID) to store and transmit information about the cardholder’s identity and access rights. Swipe cards can help to prevent unauthorized entry, protect sensitive assets and data, and monitor access activity. However, swipe cards alone are not enough to ensure effective access control. They need to be complemented by other controls, such as:

Periodic review of access profiles by management: This is a type of logical access control that involves verifying that the access rights assigned to each cardholder are appropriate, necessary, and consistent with the organization’s policies and procedures. Periodic review of access profiles can help to detect and correct any errors, inconsistencies, or violations in the access control system, such as outdated, excessive, or redundant access rights, segregation of duties conflicts, or unauthorized changes. Periodic review of access profiles can also help to ensure compliance with internal and external audit requirements and regulations.

Implementation of additional PIN pads: This is a type of multi-factor authentication (MFA) that requires the cardholder to enter a personal identification number (PIN) in addition to swiping their card. MFA can enhance the security of the access control system by adding another layer of verificationand reducing the risk of lost, stolen, or cloned cards being used by unauthorized persons.

Installation of closed-circuit television (CCTV): This is a type of surveillance system that uses cameras and monitors to record and display the images of the people and activities in the restricted areas. CCTV can deter potential intruders, provide evidence of any security incidents or breaches, and enable real-time monitoring and response by security personnel.

The other options are not as effective or relevant as periodic review of access profiles by management for an additional control when using swipe cards. Physical sign-in of all employees for access to restricted areas is a redundant and inefficient control that can be easily bypassed or manipulated. It also does not provide any assurance or verification of the identity or access rights of the cardholders. Audit hooks are software routines embedded in an application that can trigger an alert or a report when certain conditions are met. Audit hooks can help to detect anomalies or exceptions in access control lists, but they do not provide a comprehensive or integrated view of them.

Minimizing business downtime is critical when implementing a new system that supports an essential process like month-end closing.

Option A (Incorrect):Thebig bang approachinvolves replacing the old system with the new system all at once. This method carries ahigh riskbecause if issues arise, they may causesignificant downtimeand disruption.

Option B (Correct):Aphased approachgradually implements the system in stages, allowing users toadaptand minimizing the risk of complete failure. This strategy is ideal for critical systems that cannot afford extended downtime.

Option C (Incorrect):Thecutover approachis a variation of big bang, where the old system is shut down, and the new system is activated. This method isriskyfor month-end processes because errors can causebusiness delays.

Option D (Incorrect):Theparallel approachruns both old and new systems simultaneously to verify accuracy, but it isresource-intensiveand may not be practical for a high-volume month-end process.

Defining clear, comprehensive, and testable requirements is critical before selecting and implementing a software product. Without well-documented requirements, the risk of choosing a solution that does not align with business needs increases significantly. A support contract (C) is important for long-term use, and escrow (D) may protect against vendor insolvency, but neither ensures that the product fits the organization’s objectives. A post-implementation review (B) only evaluates success after implementation, which may be too late to correct fundamental misalignment. ISACA’s COBIT framework (BAI03 and BAI05) stresses the importance of requirements gathering as the foundation for effective solution acquisition and development.

References (ISACA): COBIT® 2019, BAI03 Managed Solutions Identification and Build; BAI05 Managed Organizational Change.

The most helpful thing for an IS auditor when assessing the effectiveness of controls is the results of control testing, as this provides objective and reliable evidence of how well the controls are designed and operating in practice. A control self-assessment (CSA) is a technique that involves the participation of process owners and stakeholders in evaluating the effectiveness of controls, but it may not be as rigorous or independent as control testing. Interviews with management are useful for gaining an understanding of the control environment and culture, but they may not reflect the actual performance of controls. A control matrix is a tool that maps the controls to the objectives, risks, and requirements, but it does not measure the effectiveness of controls. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version),Chapter 1: Information Systems Auditing Process, Section 1.3: IT Audit Process

The auditor implemented a specific control during the development of the system. This would impair the auditor’s independence, as it would create a self-review threat, which is a situation where an auditor has to evaluate or review the results of his or her own work or judgment1. A self-review threat may compromise the auditor’s objectivity and impartiality, as the auditor may be biased or influenced by his or her own involvement or interest in the system1. The auditor may also face a conflict of interest or a loss of credibility if he or she has to report on any issues or deficiencies related to the control he or she implemented.

The correct answer is B. Assessing key controls that support the migration.

ISACA guidance explains that internal audit should be involved in cloud procurement, design, and adoption to identify relevant risks and ensure that appropriate controls are in place and operating effectively. That is an assurance role, not a management or implementation role.

Option A is incorrect because mitigating risk to an acceptable level is a management responsibility, not an internal audit responsibility. Internal audit evaluates and provides assurance, but should not own risk treatment in a way that impairs independence.

Option C is incorrect because implementing security controls is also a management or operational responsibility, not the auditor’s role.

Option D is incorrect because budget and resource impact analysis is primarily a management planning function.

Therefore, the correct answer is B, because internal audit’s proper role is to assess whether the key controls supporting the cloud migration are appropriate and effective.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA Now Blog, Five Major Auditing Challenges in Cloud Computing and How to Overcome Them — internal audit should identify cloud risks and ensure appropriate controls are in place and operating effectively.

ISACA, Now Is the Time for IT Auditors to Perform Advisory Pre-Implementation Reviews — internal audit provides observations and recommendations to enhance the control environment before deployment.

ISACA Journal, Digital Trust and the Audit Function — audit acts as assurance for implementation of required practices.

 Input validation is the best control to address SQL injection vulnerabilities, because it can prevent malicious users from entering SQL commands or statements into input fields that are intended for data entry, such as usernames or passwords. SQL injection is a technique that exploits a security vulnerability in an application’s software by inserting SQL code into a query string that can execute commands on a database server. Unicode translation, SSL encryption, and digital signatures are not effectivecontrols against SQL injection, because they do not prevent or detect SQL code injection into input fields. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2

The business case for an information system investment is a document that provides the rationale and justification for the investment, based on the expected costs, benefits, risks, and impacts of the project12. The business case should be available for review until the benefits have been fully realized, because it serves as a baseline for measuring the actual performance and outcomes of the project against the planned ones34. This helps to evaluate the success and value of the investment, and to identify any gaps or issues that need to be addressed5.

References

1: The Business Case for Security - CISA

2: Beyond the Business Case: New Approaches to IT Investment

3: #HowTo: Build a Business Case for Cybersecurity Investment

4: ISACA CISA Certified Information Systems Auditor Exam … - PUPUWEB

5: The Business Case for Security | CISA

Post-implementation testing is the process of verifying and validating the functionality, performance, and security of a system after it has been deployed to the production environment1. Post-implementation testing is important for ensuring that the system meets the user requirements and expectations, as well as the operational and business objectives. Post-implementation testing also helps to identify and resolve any defects, errors, or issues that may have occurred during the deployment process or that may have been missed during the previous testing stages2.

Therefore, the observation that post-implementation testing is not conducted for all system releases should be of greatest concern to an IS auditor performing an audit of change and release management controls for a new complex system developed by a small in-house IT team. This observation indicates that the system may have quality, reliability, or security problems that could affect the user satisfaction, system performance, or data integrity. This observation also suggests that the change and release management controls are not adequate or effective, as they do not ensure that all system releases are properly tested and validated before and after deployment.

Option A is not correct because access to change testing strategy and results is not restricted to staff outside the IT team is not a major concern for an IS auditor. While it is good practice to limit access to sensitive or confidential information, such as test data or test cases, to authorized personnel only, access to change testing strategy and results may not pose a significant risk to the system or the organization. Moreover, access to change testing strategy and results may be beneficial for some stakeholders outside the IT team, such as business users, project managers, or auditors, who may need to review or evaluate the testing process or outcomes.

Option B is not correct because some user acceptance testing (UAT) was completed by members of the IT team is not a major concern for an IS auditor. User acceptance testing is the process of verifying and validating that the system meets the user requirements and expectations by involving actual or representative users in the testing process3. While it is preferable to have independent and unbiased users perform UAT, it may not be feasible or practical for some organizations, especially those with small or limited resources. Therefore, some UAT may be completed by members of the IT team, as long as they have sufficient knowledge and experience of the user needs and expectations, and as long as they follow the UAT plan and criteria.

Option C is not correct because IT administrators have access to the production and development environment is not a major concern for an IS auditor. IT administrators are responsible for managing and maintaining the IT infrastructure, including the production and development environments4. Therefore, it is reasonable and necessary for them to have access to both environments, as long as they follow the appropriate policies and procedures for accessing, using, and securing them. Moreover, IT administrators may need to perform tasks such as backup, restore, patching, or troubleshooting in both environments.

The best answer is D. To structure IT projects to achieve desired business results.

ISACA guidance describes enterprise architecture as a top-down, business-driven discipline focused on business capabilities, strategy, and alignment of people, process, and technology. Enterprise architecture is not primarily about individual systems or day-to-day operations. Its purpose is to ensure that change initiatives and IT investments are organized in a way that supports the enterprise’s strategic and business outcomes.

Option A is too narrow because EA is broader than designing single systems. Option B is only one specialized area within the overall architecture landscape. Option C is more aligned with operations management than enterprise architecture. The strongest answer is the one linking EA to business-driven structuring of initiatives and results.

Therefore, the correct answer is D, because enterprise architecture exists to align and structure IT initiatives so the organization can achieve desired business results.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA, Developing Business Capabilities Using COBIT 5 — enterprise architecture focuses on business capabilities supporting strategy.

ISACA Journal, Enterprise Security Architecture—A Top-down Approach — architecture bridges business risk, process requirements, and technical issues.

ISACA Journal, Information Security Architecture: Gap Assessment and Prioritization — supports business-driven architectural alignment.

ISACA, Using COBIT 2019 to Plan and Execute an Organization Transformation Strategy — IT governance and management should create value from IT initiatives.

Business stakeholders being involved in approving the IT strategy best demonstrates that IT strategy is aligned with organizational goals and objectives. IT strategy is a plan that defines how IT resources and capabilities will support and enable the achievement of business goals and objectives. Business stakeholders are the individuals or groups who have an interest or influence in the organization’s activities and outcomes. By involving business stakeholders in approving the IT strategy, the organization can ensure that the IT strategy reflects and supports the business needs, expectations, and priorities. The other options do not necessarily indicate that IT strategy is aligned with organizational goals and objectives, as they do not involve the participation or feedback of business stakeholders. References: CISAReview Manual, 27th Edition, page 97

A source code repository is a system that stores and manages the source code of a software project. A source code repository should be designed to provide secure versioning and backup capabilities for existing code, as these are essential features for concurrent development, code quality, and disaster recovery. Versioning allows developers to track, compare, and revert changes to the code over time. Backup ensures that the code is safely stored and can be restored in case of data loss or corruption.

References

Source Code Repositories: What is a Source Code Repository?

Git Source Code Repository Design Considerations

Best practices for repositories - GitHub Docs

A database administrator (DBA) is responsible for maintaining the integrity, security and performance of the database systems. A DBA who is also responsible for developing and executing changes into the production environment may have a conflict of interest and pose a risk to the data quality and availability. Therefore, the IS auditor should first identify whether any compensating controls exist to mitigate this risk, such as independent reviews, approvals, audits or monitoring of the changes. Determining whether another DBA could make the changes, reporting a potential segregation of duties violation and ensuring a change management process is followed prior to implementation are possible actions that the auditor could take after identifying the compensating controls or the lack thereof. References:

 DatabaseAdministrator (DBA) Definition

 Segregation of Duties | ISACA

[Compensating Control Definition]

 The most effective control over visitor access to highly secured areas is to require visitors to be escorted by authorized personnel. This control ensures that visitors are supervised at all times and do not enter any restricted or sensitive areas without permission. It also allows authorized personnel to verify the identity, purpose, and clearance of the visitors, and to monitor their behavior and activities. Escorting visitors also reduces the risk of tailgating, piggybacking, or unauthorized duplication of access credentials.

Requiring visitors to use biometric authentication, monitoring visitors online by security cameras, and requiring visitors to enter through dead-man doors are all examples of technical controls that can enhance visitor access control, but they are not as effective as escorting visitors. Biometric authentication can provide a high level of identity verification, but it does not prevent visitors from accessing unauthorized areas or compromising security in other ways. Security cameras can provide a record of visitor movements and actions, but they may not deter or detect security breaches in real time. Dead-man doors can prevent unauthorized entry by requiring two-factor authentication, but they do not ensure that visitors are accompanied by authorized personnel.

The correct answer is A. Escalate the situation to audit management.

If a process owner accepts residual risk that appears to exceed the organization’s risk appetite, the IS auditor should not simply accept the action plan. The auditor should escalate the matter through the proper audit chain, beginning with audit management. Audit management can evaluate the significance of the disagreement, determine the proper escalation path, and decide whether the matter should be discussed with executive management or the audit committee.

Option B is incorrect because accepting an action plan that leaves risk outside the organization’s risk appetite would be inappropriate. Option C may become appropriate later, but the auditor should first escalate internally to audit management rather than going directly to the audit committee. Option D may also become appropriate, but direct communication to executive management should normally be coordinated through audit management and established audit protocols.

ISACA defines residual risk as the risk remaining after management has implemented a risk response, and risk appetite as the amount of risk an organization is prepared to accept in pursuit of its objectives.

This maps to Information Systems Auditing Process because it concerns audit findings, management responses, residual risk, and proper escalation.