Pass the Isaca Isaca Certification CISA Questions and answers with CertsForce

The most important thing for the auditor to confirm when sourcing the population data for testing accounts payable controls by performing data analytics is that the data is taken directly from the system. Taking the data directly from the system can help ensure that the data is authentic, complete, and accurate, and that it has not been manipulated or modified by any intermediary sources or processes. The other options are not as important as taking the data directly from the system, as they do not affect the validity or reliability of the data. There is no privacy information in the data is a privacy concern that can help protect the confidentiality and integrity of personal or sensitive data, but it does not affect the accuracy or completeness of the data. The data can be obtained in a timely manner is a logistical concern that can help facilitate the efficiency and effectiveness of the data analytics process, but it does not affect the authenticity or accuracy of the data. The data analysis tools have been recently updated is a technical concern that can helpenhance the functionality and performance of the data analytics tools, but it does not affect the validity or reliability of the data. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

A mesh configuration provides the greatest fault tolerance. ISACA’s glossary explicitly defines mesh topology as “a fault-tolerant topology in which network nodes and endpoints are mostly, if not fully, interconnected.” That directly answers the question.

Option D is correct because a mesh topology provides multiple alternate communication paths. If one link or node fails, traffic can often be rerouted through other paths, making the network more resilient than star, ring, or bus topologies.

Option A is less fault tolerant because the central hub or switch can become a single point of failure.

Option B is less fault tolerant because failure in the ring can disrupt communication unless specialized redundancy exists.

Option C is the least fault tolerant among these common topologies because the shared backbone can become a major single point of failure.

Therefore, D is the best answer, and ISACA’s glossary directly supports it.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA Glossary, Mesh topology — “A fault-tolerant topology...”

The greatest risk associated with the situation of business units purchasing cloud-based applications without IT support is that the applications may not reasonably protect data. Cloud-based applications are software applications that run on the internet, rather than on a local device or network. Cloud-based applications offer manybenefits, such as scalability, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness, but they also pose many challenges and risks, especially for data security1.

Data security is the process of protecting data from unauthorized access, use, modification, disclosure, or destruction. Data security is essential for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data, as well as complying with legal and regulatory requirements. Data security is especially important for cloud-based applications, as data are stored and processed on remote servers that are owned and managed by third-party cloud service providers (CSPs)2.

When business units purchase cloud-based applications without IT support, they may not be aware of or follow the best practices and standards for data security in the cloud. They may not performadequate risk assessments, vendor evaluations, contract reviews, or audits to ensure that the CSPs and the applications meet the organization’s data security policies and expectations. They may not implement appropriate data encryption, backup, recovery, or disposal methods to protect the data in transit and at rest. They may not monitor or control the access and usage of the data by internal or external users. They may not report or respond to any data breaches or incidents that may occur3.

These actions or inactions may expose the organization’s data to various threats and vulnerabilities in the cloud, such as cyberattacks, human errors, malicious insiders, misconfigurations, or legal disputes. These threats and vulnerabilities may result in data loss, leakage, corruption, or compromise, which may have serious consequences for theorganization’s reputation, operations, performance, compliance, and liability4.

Therefore, it is essential that business units consult and collaborate with IT support before purchasing any cloud-based applications, and follow the organization’s guidelines and procedures for cloud security. IT support can help business units to select and use cloud-based applications that are suitable and secure for their needs and objectives.

Compared to developing a system in-house, acquiring a software package means that the need for testing by end users is unchanged. This is because end users are still the ultimate customers and beneficiaries of the system, and they need to ensure that the software package meets their requirements, expectations, and satisfaction. End user testing, also known as user acceptance testing (UAT) or beta testing, is the final stage of testing performed by the user or client to determine whether the software can be accepted or not1. Enduser testing is important for both in-house developed and acquired software packages, as it helps to verify the functionality, usability, performance, and reliability of the system2. End user testing also helps to identify and resolve any defects, errors, or issues that may not have been detected by the developers or vendors3.

Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

Option A is not correct because end user testing is not eliminated by acquiring a software package. Even though the software package may have been tested by the vendor or supplier, it may still have bugs, compatibility issues, or configuration problems that need to be fixed before deployment4. Option C is not correct because end user testing is not increased by acquiring a software package. The scope and extent of end user testing depend on various factors, such as the complexity, criticality, and customization of the system, and not on whether it is developed in-house or acquired. Option D is not correct because end user testing is not reduced by acquiring a software package. The software package may still require modifications or integrations to suit the specific needs and environment of the organization, and these changes need to be tested by the end users.

Moving validation controls from the server side into the browser would most likely increase the risk of a successful attack by structured query language (SQL) injection. SQL injection is a technique that exploits a security vulnerability in an application’s database layer by inserting malicious SQL statements into user input fields. Validation controls are used to check and filter user input before sending it to the database. If these controls are moved to the browser, they can be easily bypassed or modified by an attacker, who can then execute arbitrary SQL commands on the database. References: CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 361

The primary benefit of an audit approach that requires reported findings to be issued together with related action plans, owners, and target dates is that it establishes accountability for the action plans. Accountability means that the individuals or groups who are responsible for implementing the action plans are clearly identified and held liable for their completion within the specified time frame. Accountability also implies that the action plans are monitored and evaluated to ensure that they are effective and efficient in addressing the audit findings and mitigating the associated risks1. Accountability helps to ensure that the audit recommendations are taken seriously and implemented properly, and that the audit value is realized by the organization2. The other options are less relevant or incorrect because:

A. It facilitates easier audit follow-up is not the primary benefit of an audit approach that requires reported findings to be issued together with related action plans, owners, and target dates, as it is more of a secondary or indirect benefit. Auditfollow-up is the process of verifying whether the action plans have been implemented and whether they have resolved the audit findings3. While having clear action plans, owners, and target dates may facilitate easier audit follow-up by providing a basis for tracking and reporting the progress and status of the action plans, it does not necessarily guarantee that the action plans will be implemented or effective.

B. It enforces action plan consensus between auditors and auditees is not the primary benefit of an audit approach that requires reported findings to be issued together with related action plans, owners, and target dates, as it is more of a prerequisite or condition for such an approach. Action plan consensus means that the auditors and auditees agree on the audit findings and recommendations, and on the action plans to address them4. While having action plan consensus may enhance the credibility and acceptance of the audit approach, it does not necessarily ensure that the action plans will be implemented or effective.

D. It helps to ensure factual accuracy of findings is not the primary benefit of an audit approach that requires reported findings to be issued together with related action plans, owners, and target dates, as it is more of an outcome or result of such an approach. Factual accuracy of findings means that theaudit findings are based on sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful evidence5. While having factual accuracy of findings may increase the confidence and trust in the audit approach, it does not necessarily ensure that the action plans will be implemented or effective. References: Accountability - ISACA, Audit Value - ISACA, Audit Follow-up - ISACA, Action Plan Consensus - ISACA, Factual Accuracy of Findings - ISACA

 This is because privacy regulations are laws or rules that protect the personal information of individuals from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, or transfer by third parties. Payroll audit documentation may contain sensitive and confidential data, such as employee names, salaries, benefits, taxes, deductions, and bank accounts. If the audit management application is hosted by a third party in a different country, the organization may need to comply with the privacy regulations of both its own country and the host country, as well as any international or regional agreements or frameworks that apply. Privacy regulations may impose various requirements and obligations on the organization, such as obtaining consent from the data subjects, implementing appropriate security measures, notifying data breaches, and ensuring data quality and accuracy. Privacy regulations may also grant various rights to the data subjects, such as accessing, correcting, deleting, or transferring their data. Failing to comply with privacy regulations may expose the organization to significant risks and consequences, such as legal actions, fines, sanctions, reputational damage, or loss of trust.

Some examples of privacy regulations affecting the organization are:

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is a comprehensive and strict privacy regulation that applies to anyorganization that processes personal data of individuals in the European Union (EU) or offers goods or services to them, regardless ofwhere the organization or the data is located1.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which is a broad and influential privacy regulation that applies to any organization that collectspersonal information of California residentsand meets certain thresholds of revenue, data volume, or data sharing2.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which is a sector-specific privacy regulation that applies to any organization that handles protected health information(PHI) of individuals in the United States, such as health care providers, health plans, or health care clearinghouses3.

Therefore, before using an audit management application hosted by a third party in a different country, the internal audit team should conduct a thorough assessment of the privacy regulations affecting the organization and ensure that they have adequate policies, procedures, and controls in place to comply with them.

Prior to a follow-up engagement, if an IS auditor learns that management has decided to accept a level of residual risk related to an audit finding without remediation, the IS auditor should report the issue to IS audit management. This is because IS audit management is responsible for ensuring that audit findings are properly communicated and resolved. Accepting management’s decision and continuing the follow-up would not address the IS auditor’s concern. Reporting the disagreement to the board or executive management would be premature and inappropriate without consulting IS audit management first. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1, Section 1.6

 A disaster recovery plan (DRP) is a set of detailed, documented guidelines that outline a business’ critical assets and explain how the organization will respond to unplanned incidents. Unplanned incidents or disasters typically include cyberattacks, system failures, power outages, natural disasters, equipment failures, or infrastructure damage1. A DRP aims to minimize the impact of a disaster on the business continuity, data integrity, and service delivery of the organization. A DRP also helps the organization recover from a disaster as quickly and efficiently as possible.

A DRP should include steps for obtaining replacement supplies, as this is an essential part of restoring the normal operation of the organization after a disaster. Replacement supplies may include hardware, software, data, network components, office equipment, or other resources that are needed to resume the business functions and processes that were disrupted by the disaster. Obtaining replacement supplies may involve contacting vendors, suppliers, or partners; activating backup or alternative systems; or purchasing or renting new equipment. A DRP should identify the sources, locations, and costs of the replacement supplies, as well as the procedures and responsibilities for acquiring and installing them.

The other three options are not steps that a DRP should include, as they are either part of the pre-disaster planning process or not directly related to the disaster recovery objectives. Assessing and quantifying risk is a step that should be done before creating a DRP, as it helps identify the potential threats and vulnerabilities that could affect the organization and determine the likelihood and impact of each scenario2. Negotiating contracts with disaster planning consultants is also a pre-disaster activity that may help the organization design, implement, test, and maintain a DRP with external expertise and guidance3. Identifying application control requirements is not a step in a DRP, but rather a part of the application development and maintenance process that ensures the quality, security, and reliability of the software applications used by the organization.

Therefore, obtaining replacement supplies is the correct answer.

 Information security policies and procedures are the foundation of an organization’s information security program. They define the roles, responsibilities, rules, and standards for protecting information assets from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction. The most important factor when developing information security policies and procedures is to align them with an information security framework that provides a comprehensive and consistent approach to managing information security risks. An information security framework can also help ensure compliance with relevant regulations, inclusion of mission and objectives, and consultation with security staff. However, these factors are secondary to alignment with an information security framework. References: CISA Certification | Certified Information Systems Auditor | ISACA, CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

Following a breach, the maximum amount of time before customers must be notified that their personal information may have been compromised depends on the industry regulations that apply to the organization. Different industries and jurisdictions may have different legal and regulatory requirements for breach notification, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) in Canada. Industry standards, incident response plans, and information security policies are not as authoritative as industry regulations in determining the breach notification time frame. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), [ISACA Privacy Principles and Program Management Guide]

Effective governance over IT infrastructure is indicated by the ability to deliver continuous, reliable performance12. This is because good governance ensures that IT investments support business objectives and produce measurable results towards achieving their strategies2. It involves implementing management and internal controls, strengthening security, financial controls, risk mitigation, and inspection and compliance obligations3. While security awareness programs, the number of servers, and the number of security incidents can be aspects of IT governance, they are not the best indicators of its effectiveness.

 The greatest concern for an IS auditor reviewing an organization’s disaster recovery plan (DRP) is that the DRP has not been updated since an IT infrastructure upgrade. This could render the DRP obsolete or ineffective, as it may not reflect the current configuration, dependencies or recovery requirements of the IT systems. The IS auditor should ensure that the DRP is reviewed and updated regularly to align with any changes in the IT environment. The DRP has not been formally approved by senior management is a concern for an IS auditor reviewing an organization’s DRP, but it is not as critical as ensuring that the DRP is up to date and valid. The DRP has not been distributed to end users or the DRP contains recovery procedures for critical servers only are issues that relate to the communication or scope of the DRP, but not to its validity or effectiveness. References: ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2018, page 389

The effectiveness of a security awareness training program is best indicated by a reduction in unintentional violations. When employees are well-trained and aware of security practices, they are less likely to inadvertently violate security policies or make mistakes that could lead to breaches. While other factors (such as third-party social engineering tests, employee satisfaction, and completion rates) provide valuable insights, the ultimate goal of security awareness training is to minimize unintentional errors and improve overall security posture12. References: 1(https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2023/volume-2/considerations-for-developing-cybersecurity-awareness-training) 2(https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/isaca-now-blog/2023/security-awareness-training-a-critical-success-factor-for-organizations)

The first step when creating a data classification program is to develop a policy (D). A data classification policy is a document that defines the purpose, scope, objectives, roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the data classification program. A data classification policy is essential for establishing the governance framework, standards, and guidelines for the data classification process. A data classification policy also helps to communicate the expectations and benefits of the data classification program to the stakeholders, such as data owners, users, custodians, and auditors12.

Categorizing and prioritizing data (A) is not the first step when creating a data classification program, but the third step. Categorizing and prioritizing data involves defining and applying the criteria and labels for classifying data based on its sensitivity, value, and risk. For example, data can be categorized into public, internal, confidential, or restricted levels. Categorizing and prioritizing data helps to identify and protect the most critical and sensitive data assets of the organization12.

Developing data process maps (B) is not the first step when creating a data classification program, but the fourth step. Developing data process maps involves documenting and analyzing the flow and lifecycle of data within the organization. Data process maps show how data is created, collected, stored, processed, transmitted, used, shared, archived, and disposed of. Developing data process maps helps to understand the context and dependencies of data, as well as to identify and mitigate any potential risks or issues related to data quality, security, or compliance12.

Categorizing information by owner © is not the first step when creating a data classification program, but the second step. Categorizing information by owner involves assigning roles and responsibilities for each type of data based on its ownership and stewardship. Data owners are the individuals or entities that have the authority and accountability for the data. Data stewards are the individuals or entities that have the operational responsibility for managing and maintaining the data. Data custodians are the individuals or entities that have the technical responsibility for implementing and enforcing the security and access controls for the data12.

The most important factor when planning a network audit is to identify the existing nodes on the network. Nodes are devices or systems that are connected to the network and can communicate with each other. Nodes can include servers, workstations, routers, switches, firewalls, printers, scanners, cameras, etc. Identifying the existing nodes on the network will help the auditor to determine the scope, objectives, and methodology of the audit. It will also help the auditor to assess the network topology, architecture, performance, security, and compliance. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

CISA Questions, Answers and Explanations Database

The best answer is D. The dataset for training the model was obtained from an unreliable source.

ISACA’s AI and ML guidance places strong emphasis on the quality, reliability, and validation of input and training data. ISACA notes that controls must validate each data source and that corrupted or poor-quality training data can lead to poor-quality outcomes. If the training dataset comes from an unreliable source, the model’s predictions may be fundamentally flawed, biased, manipulated, or unauditable from the start.

Option A. Open source programming language is not inherently a concern. The language itself does not determine whether the model is reliable or controlled.

Option B. Tested with data from the same population as the training data is a common validation step and not inherently problematic by itself.

Option C. Accuracy decreased with a different population can be a concern about generalizability, but in this question it is less fundamental than unreliable training data. If the source data itself is untrustworthy, all downstream results are suspect.

Therefore, D is the correct answer because unreliable training data creates the most serious foundational risk to the model’s validity and trustworthiness.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA Journal, Developing Trustworthy AI: Understanding the Inputs.

ISACA Journal, Artificial Intelligence’s Impact on Auditing—Emerging Technologies.

ISACA press release, New ISACA Publications Highlight Machine Learning Technology and Compliance Risk for Auditors.

ISACA, AI Algorithm Audits: Key Control Considerations.

The best course of action for the IS auditor is A. Escalate to IT management for resolution. This is because IT management is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the IT activities and functions within the organization, and ensuring that they comply with the audit findings and recommendations1. IT management can help resolve the issue of finding ownership by:

Clarifying and communicating the roles and responsibilities of each IT team, and how they relate to the finding and its remediation2.

Evaluating and assigning the finding to the most appropriate IT team, based on their expertise, authority, and availability2.

Providing guidance and support to the assigned IT team, and monitoring their progress and performance in remediating the finding2.

 The best recommendation to address the situation of inconsistencies in privacy requirements across third-party service provider contracts is to prioritize contract amendments for third-party providers. This is because:

Privacy requirements are essential to ensure the protection of personal information and compliance with relevant laws and regulations, such as the GDPR and the CCPA123.

Inconsistencies in privacy requirements can create risks of data breaches, legal liabilities, reputational damage, and consumer distrust for the organization that outsources its data processing to third-party providers123.

Suspending contracts with third-party providers that handle sensitive data (option A) is not a feasible or effective solution, as it may disrupt the business operations and cause contractual penalties or disputes4.

Reviewing privacy requirements when contracts come up for renewal (option C) is not a proactive or timely approach, as it may leave the organization exposed to privacy risks for a long period of time until the contracts expire4.

Requiring third-party providers to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) (option D) is not a sufficient measure, as NDAs only cover the confidentiality of information, but not other aspects of privacy, such as data minimization, retention, access, deletion, and security4.

Therefore, the best recommendation is to prioritize contract amendments for third-party providers (option B), as this would allow the organization to align the privacy requirements with its own policies and standards, as well as with the applicable laws and regulations. This would also enable the organization to monitor and audit the compliance of third-party providers with the privacy requirements and enforce appropriate remedies or sanctions in case of noncompliance45.

 The greatest concern for an IS auditor when a post-implementation review was conducted by issuing a survey to users is that the survey questions did not address the scope of the business case. A post-implementation review is a process of evaluating the outcomes and benefits of a project after it has been completed and implemented. A post-implementation review can help to assess whether the project met its objectives, delivered its expected value, and satisfied its stakeholders1. A survey is a method of collecting feedback and opinions from users or other stakeholders about their experience and satisfaction with the project. Asurvey can help to measure the user acceptance, usability, and functionality of the project deliverables2. A business case is a document that justifies the need for a project based on its expected benefits, costs, risks, and alternatives. A business case defines the scope,objectives, and requirements of the project and provides a basis for its approval and initiation3. Therefore, an IS auditor should be concerned if the survey questions did not address the scope of the business case, as it may indicate that the post-implementation review was not comprehensive, relevant, or aligned with the project goals. The other options are less concerning or incorrect because:

A. The survey results were not presented in detail to management is not a great concern for an IS auditor when a post-implementation review was conducted by issuing a survey to users, as it is more of a communication or reporting issue than an audit issue. While presenting the survey results in detail to management may help to inform them about the project performance and outcomes, it does not affect the validity or quality of the post-implementation review itself.

C. The survey form template did not allow additional feedback to be provided is not a great concern for an IS auditor when a post-implementation review was conducted by issuing a survey to users, as it is more of a design or format issue than an audit issue. While allowing additional feedback to be provided may help to capture more insights or suggestions from users, it does not affect the validity or quality of the post-implementation review itself.

D. The survey was issued to employees a month after implementation is not a great concern for an IS auditor when a post-implementation review was conducted by issuing a survey to users, as it is more of a timing or scheduling issue than an audit issue. While issuing the survey to employees sooner after implementation may help to collect more accurate and timely feedback from users, it does not affect the validity or quality of the post-implementation review itself. References: Post ImplementationReview - ISACA, Survey - ISACA, Business Case - ISACA

 The best performance indicator for the effectiveness of an incident management program is the incident resolution meantime. This is the average time it takes to resolve an incident from the moment it is reported to the moment it is closed. The incident resolution meantime reflects how quickly and efficiently the incident management team can restore normal service and minimize the impact of incidents on the business operations and customer satisfaction.

The average time between incidents (option A) is not a good performance indicator for the effectiveness of an incident management program, as it does not measure how well the incidents are handled or resolved. It only shows how frequently the incidents occur, which may depend on various factors beyond the control of the incident management team, such as the complexity and reliability of the systems, the security threats and vulnerabilities, and the user behavior and expectations.

The incident alert meantime (option B) is the average time it takes to detect and report an incident. While this is an important metric for measuring the responsiveness and awareness of the incident management team, it does not indicate how effective the incident management program is in resolving the incidents and restoring normal service.

The number of incidents reported (option C) is also not a good performance indicator for the effectiveness of an incident management program, as it does not reflect how well the incidents are handled or resolved. It only shows how many incidents are identified and recorded, which may vary depending on the reporting channels, tools, and procedures used by the incident management team and the users.

Therefore, option D is the correct answer.

A disaster recovery plan (DRP) is a set of procedures and resources that enable an organization to restore its critical operations, data, and applications in the event of a disaster1. A DRP should be aligned with the organization’s business continuity plan (BCP), which defines the strategies and objectives for maintaining business functions during and after a disaster1.

To ensure that a DRP is effective, it should betested regularly and thoroughly to identify and resolve any issues or gaps that might hinder itsexecution2345. Testing a DRP can help evaluate its feasibility, validity, reliability, and compatibility with the organization’s environment and needs4. Testing can also help prepare the staff, stakeholders, and vendors involved in the DRP for their roles and responsibilities during a disaster3.

There are different methods and levels of testing a DRP, depending on the scope, complexity, and objectives of the test4. Some of the common testing methods are:

Walkthrough testing: This is a step-by-step review of the DRP by the disaster recovery team and relevant stakeholders. It aims to verify the completeness and accuracy of the plan, as well as to clarify any doubts or questions among the participants45.

Simulation testing: This is a mock exercise of the DRP in a simulated disaster scenario. It aims to assess the readiness and effectiveness of the plan, as well as to identify any challenges or weaknesses that might arise during a real disaster45.

Checklist testing: This is a verification of the availability and functionality of the resources and equipment required for the DRP. It aims toensure that the backup systems, data, anddocumentation are accessible and up-to-date45.

Full interruption testing: This is the most realistic and rigorous method of testing a DRP. It involves shutting down the primary site and activating the backup site for a certain period of time. It aims to measure the actual impact andperformance of the DRP under real conditions45.

Parallel testing: This is a less disruptive method of testing a DRP. It involves running the backup site in parallel with the primary site without affecting the normal operations. It aims to compare and validate the results and outputs of both sites45.

Amongthese methods, full interruption testing would best demonstrate that an effectiveDRP is in place, as it provides the most accurate and comprehensive evaluation ofthe plan’s capabilities and limitations4. Full interruption testing can reveal any hidden or unforeseen issues or risks that might affect the recovery process, such as data loss, system failure, compatibility problems, or human errors4. Full interruption testing can also verify that the backup site can support the critical operations and services ofthe organization without compromising its quality or security4.

However, full interruption testing also has some drawbacks, such as being costly, time-consuming, risky, and disruptive to the normaloperations4. Therefore, it should be planned carefullyand conducted periodically with proper coordination and communication among all parties involved4.

The other options are not as effective as full interruption testing in demonstrating that an effective DRP is in place. Frequent testing of backups is only one aspect of checklist testing, which does not cover other components or scenarios of the DRP4. Annual walk-through testing is only atheoretical review of the DRP, which does not test its practical implementation or outcomes4. Periodic risk assessment is only a preparatory step for developing or updating the DRP, which does not test its functionality or performance4.

The necessary condition for effective risk management in IT governance is that risk evaluation is embedded in management processes. Risk evaluation is the process of comparing the results of risk analysis with risk criteria to determine whether the risk and/or its magnitude is acceptable or tolerable. Risk evaluation should be integrated into the management processes of planning, implementing, monitoring, and reviewing the IT activities and resources. This will ensure that risk management is aligned with the business objectives, strategies, and values, and that risk responses are timely, appropriate, and effective. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

CISA Questions, Answers and ExplanationsDatabase

 An IS auditor is conducting a review of a data center. An observation that could indicate an access control issue is muddy footprints directly inside the emergency exit. Access control is a process that ensures that only authorized entities or individuals can access or use an information system or resource, and prevents unauthorized access or use. Access control can be implemented using various methods or mechanisms, such as physical, logical, administrative, etc. Muddy footprints directly inside the emergency exit could indicate an access control issue, as they could suggest that someone has entered the data center through the emergency exit without proper authorization or authentication, and potentially compromised the security or integrity of the data center. Security cameras deployed outside main entrance is not an observation that could indicate an access control issue, but rather a control that could enhance access control, as security cameras are devices that capture and record video footage of the surroundings, and can help monitor and deter unauthorized access or activity. Antistatic mats deployed at the computer room entrance is not an observation that could indicate an access control issue, but rather a control that could prevent static electricity damage, as antistatic mats are devices that dissipate or reduce static charges from people or objects, and can help protect electronic equipment from electrostatic discharge (ESD). Fencing around facility is two meters high is not an observation that could indicate an access control issue, but rather a control that could improve physical security, as fencing is a barrier that encloses or surrounds an area, and can help prevent unauthorized entry or intrusion. 

The primary role of an audit reviewer with regard to evidence is to ensure that evidence is sufficient to support audit conclusions. Evidence is the information obtained by the auditor to provide a reasonable basis for the audit opinion or findings. Evidence should be sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful to support the audit objectives and criteria. The audit reviewer should evaluate the quality and quantity of evidence collected by the auditor and determine if it is adequate to draw valid conclusions and recommendations. Ensuring unauthorized individuals do not tamper with evidence after it has been captured is a role of the auditor, not the audit reviewer. The auditor is responsible for safeguarding the evidence from loss, damage, or alteration during the audit process. The auditor should also document the source, date, and method of obtaining the evidence, as well as any limitations or restrictions on its use or disclosure. Ensuring appropriate statistical sampling methods were used is a role of the auditor, not the audit reviewer. The auditor is responsible for selecting an appropriate sampling method and technique that can provide sufficient evidence to achieve the audit objectives and criteria. The auditor should also document the sampling plan, population, sample size, selection method, evaluation method, and results. Ensuring evidence is labeled to show it was obtained from an approved source is a role of the auditor, not the audit reviewer. The auditor is responsible for labeling the evidence to indicate its origin, nature, and ownership. The auditor should also ensure that the evidence is obtained from reliable and credible sources that can be verified and corroborated. References: ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition, page 295

The best sampling method to use for verifying the adequacy of an organization’s internal controls and being concerned about potential circumvention of regulations is B. Random sampling. Random sampling is a method of selecting a sample from a population in which each item has an equal and independent chance of being selected1. Random sampling reduces the risk of bias or manipulation in the sample selection, and ensures that the sample is representative of the population. Random sampling can be used for both attribute and variable sampling, which are two types of audit sampling that test for the occurrence rate or the monetary value of errors, respectively2.

According to the ISACA CISA documentation, one of the requirements for internal audit quality assurance (QA) and continuous improvement processes is to have an external assessment at least once every five years by a qualified, independent reviewer or review team from outside the organization1. This is to ensure that the internal audit activity conforms to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (the Standards) and the Code of Ethics, and to identify opportunities for improvement2. Therefore, the lack of periodic engagement with external assessors would present the greatest concern during a review of internal audit QA and continuous improvement processes.

The first thing that an IS auditor should do when management responses to an in-person internal control questionnaire indicate a key internal control is no longer effective is to ascertain the existence of other compensating controls. Compensating controls are alternative controls that provide reasonable assurance of achieving the same objective as the original control. The IS auditor should verify whether there are any compensating controls in place that can mitigate the risk of the key control being ineffective, and evaluate their adequacy and effectiveness. The other options are not the first steps, because theyeither require more information about the compensating controls, or they are actions to be taken after identifying and assessing the compensating controls. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3

 A service level agreement (SLA) is a contract between a service provider and a customer that defines the expected level of performance, risks, and capabilities of an IT infrastructure. An IS auditor can use an SLA to measure how well the IT infrastructure meets the business needs and objectives, as well as to identify any gaps or issues that need to be addressed. The other options are not directly related to measuring the performance, risks, and capabilities of an IT infrastructure. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.2.11

CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database, Question ID 203

The best answer is B.

A quality assurance and improvement program is meant to evaluate whether the audit function is performing effectively and independently. ISACA’s candidate guide explicitly includes evaluating audit processes as part of QA and improvement programs, and ISACA peer-review guidance states that a peer review process assessing internal audit is essential to ensure it is appropriately carrying out its role. The absence of independent periodic external review is therefore the most serious concern because it weakens objective assessment of audit quality itself.

Option A is a weakness, but tracking improvement opportunities centrally is secondary to having independent validation that the function meets expected quality standards. Option C is not the best answer because substantive testing during an assessment phase may vary by engagement design. Option D matters for governance communication, but it is still less central to QA than the lack of external independent review.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA, Certification Exam Candidate Guide.

ISACA Journal, A Standardized Approach for Peer Review of Internal Audit.

 The most reliable way for an IS auditor to evaluate the operational effectiveness of an organization’s data loss prevention (DLP) controls is to verify that confidential files cannot be transmitted to a personal USB device. This is because DLP controls are designed to prevent the loss, leakage or misuse of sensitive data through breaches, ex-filtration transmissions and unauthorized use1. A personal USB device is a common way for data to be stolen or compromised, as it can bypass network security measures and allow unauthorized access to confidential files. Therefore, testing the DLP controls by attempting to copy or transfer confidential files to a personal USB device can provide a direct and objective evidence of whether the DLP controls are working as intended or not.

The other options are less reliable ways for an IS auditor to evaluate the operational effectiveness of an organization’s DLP controls. Reviewing data classification levels based on industry best practice is a way to assess the adequacy of the organization’s data protection policies, but it does not measure how well the DLP controls are implemented or enforced in practice. Verifying that current DLP software is installed on all computer systems is a way to check the technical configuration of the DLP solution, but it does not test how well the DLP software detects and prevents data loss incidents in real scenarios. Conducting interviews to identify possible data protection vulnerabilities is a way to gather qualitative information from stakeholders, but it does not provide quantitative or empirical data on the actual performance of the DLP controls.

The best way to prevent the misconfiguration from recurring is to grant user access using a role-based model. A role-based access control (RBAC) model is an access control method that assigns permissions to end-users based on their role within the organization1. RBAC provides fine-grained control, offering a simple, manageable approach to access management that is less error-prone than individually assigning permissions1. RBAC also enforces the principle of least privilege, which means that users only have the minimum access required to perform their tasks2.

A role-based model can help prevent segregation of duties (SoD) issues in an ERP system by restricting user access to conflicting activities within the application. SoD is a central issue for enterprises to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, and to reduce the risk of fraud and unauthorized transactions3. SoD requires that no single individual or group of individuals should havecontrol over two or more parts of a process or an asset3. For example, a user who can create and approve purchase orders should not be able to process payments or modify vendor records.

By using a role-based model, user access provisioning is based on the needs ofa group (e.g., accountingdepartment) based on common responsibilities and needs1. This means each role has a given set of permissions, and individuals can be assigned to one or more roles. For example, you may designate a user as an accounts payable clerk, an accounts receivable clerk, or a financial manager, and limit access to specific resources or tasks. The user-role and role-permissions relationships make it easy to perform role assignment because individual users no longer have unique access rights, rather they have privileges that conform to the permissions assigned to their specific role or job function1.

The other options are not the best way to prevent the misconfiguration from recurring. Monitoring access rights on a regular basis (option A) is a detective control that can help identify SoD issues after they occur, but it does not prevent them from happening in the first place. Referencing a standard user-access matrix (option B) is a tool that can help document and analyze user access rights, but it does not ensure that the user access rights are configured correctly or consistently. Correcting the segregation of duties conflicts (option D) is a corrective action that can resolve SoD issues once they are detected, but it does not prevent them from happening again.

The IS auditor’s next step after determining that many terminated users’ accounts were not disabled is to perform a review of terminated users’ account activity. This means that the IS auditor should check whether any of the terminated users’ accounts were accessed or used after their termination date, which could indicate unauthorized or fraudulent activity. The IS auditor should also assess the impact and risk of such activity on the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of IT resources and data. The other options are not as appropriate as performing a review of terminated users’ account activity, as they do not provide sufficient evidence or assurance of the extent and effect of the problem. References: CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 240

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The primary purpose of IT capacity management is to ensure that IT infrastructure can meet current and future performance requirements in a cost-effective manner.

Option A is correct because it directly relates to capacity management goals.

Option B (rapid deployment) relates more to change management.

Option C (security concerns) is outside the scope of capacity management.

Option D (reducing cost/time) may be a secondary benefit but not the primary objective.

???? ISACA Reference: CISA Review Manual 27th Edition, Domain 2, section on capacity management and IT service performance.

Issuing authentication tokens is the most reliable method of preventing unauthorized logon, as it provides a strong form of authentication that requires users to present something they have (the token) and something they know (the personal identification number or PIN) to access the system. Authentication tokens are physical devices that generate a one-time password or code that changes periodically and is synchronized with the authentication server. This makes it difficult for attackers to steal or guess the credentials of legitimate users. Reinforcing current security policies, limiting after-hours usage and installing an automatic password generator are not as reliable as issuing authentication tokens, as they do not provide a strong form of authentication and may still be vulnerable to unauthorized logon attempts. References:

[Authentication Token Definition]

 Authentication | ISACA

Network topology diagrams are the most important for an IS auditor to review when evaluating the design of controls related to network monitoring, because they show how the network components are connected and configured, and what security measures are in place to protect the network from unauthorized access or attacks. Incident monitoring logs, the ISP service level agreement, and reports of network traffic analysis are useful for evaluating the effectiveness and performance of network monitoring, but not the design of controls. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3

The finding that should be of most concern to an IS auditor when evaluating information security governance within an organization is that the data center manager has final sign-off on security projects. This indicates a lack of segregation of duties and a potential conflict of interest between the operational and security roles. The data center manager may have access to sensitive information or systems that should be protected by security controls, or may influence or override security decisions that are not in the best interest of the organization. This finding also suggests that there is no clear accountability or authority for information security governance at a higher level, such as senior management or board of directors. The other findings are not as concerning as this one, although they may indicate some areas for improvement or monitoring. References:

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, chapter 5, section 5.11

ISACA, IT Governance Using COBIT and Val IT: Student Booklet - 2nd Edition4

 The primary benefit of information asset classification is that it enables risk management decisions. Information asset classification helps to identify the value, sensitivity and criticality of information assets, and to determine the appropriate level of protection and controls required for them. This facilitates risk assessment and risk treatment processes, and ensures that information assets are aligned with business objectives and regulatory requirements. Preventing loss of assets, helping to align organizational objectives or facilitating budgeting accuracy are secondary benefits of information asset classification, but not the main purpose. References: ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2018, page 300

The IS auditor should review the processes for making changes to cloud environment specifications, as these are the inputs for the predefined automated procedures that deploy and configure the application infrastructure. The IS auditor should verify that the changes are authorized, documented, tested, and approved before they are applied to the cloud environment. The IS auditor should also check that the changes are aligned with the business requirements and do not introduce any security or performance issues.

References

ISACA CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 254

Configuration Management in Cloud Computing - ScienceDirect

Cloud Configuration Management - BMC Software

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The most concerning issue in DLP implementations is when tuning has never been completed.

DLP solutions require fine-tuning to properly recognize sensitive data patterns and avoid false positives/false negatives.

If tuning is incomplete, the solution will either block legitimate business processes (too restrictive) or fail to detect actual leaks (too permissive).

Now let’s break down the options:

Option A: Server support limitations may be an issue, but DLP is primarily endpoint-focused here.

Option B: Implementing blocking mode without tuning can cause disruptions, but it is not as bad as never completing tuning.

Option D: Running in monitoring mode is acceptable in early stages of deployment (testing phase).

Therefore, never completing tuning (C) represents a fundamental control weakness and is the greatest concern.

???? ISACA Reference: CISA Review Manual 27th Edition, Domain 5, section on data leakage prevention and monitoring tools.

The most important consideration when developing tabletop exercises within a cybersecurity incident response plan is to identify the scope and scenarios that are relevant to current threats faced by the organization, as this will ensure that the exercises are realistic, meaningful, and effective in testing and improving the incident response capabilities12. The scope and scenarios should reflect the organization’s risk profile, business objectives, and operational environment, and should cover a variety of potential incidents that could impact the organization’s assets, operations, and reputation34.

References

1: Cybersecurity Incident Response Exercise Guidance - ISACA 2: Cybersecurity Tabletop Exercises: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know 3: CISA Tabletop Exercise Package 4: Boost Your Incident Response Plan with Tabletop Exercises

The most important factor to ensure that electronic evidence collected during a forensic investigation will be admissible in future legal proceedings is to document evidence handling by personnel throughout the forensic investigation. Documentation is essential to establish the chain of custody, prove the integrity and authenticity of the evidence, and demonstrate compliance with legal and ethical standards. Documentation should include information such as the date, time, location, source, destination, method, purpose, result, and authorization of each action performed on the evidence. Documentation should also include any observations, findings, assumptions, limitations, or exceptions encountered during the investigation. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

CISA Questions, Answers and Explanations Database

The most important responsibility of data owners when implementing a data classification process is determining appropriate user access levels (option C). This is because:

Data owners are the persons or entities that have the authority and responsibility for the business processes and functions that collect, use, store, and dispose of data1.

Data owners are accountable for ensuring that the data is handled in compliance with the applicable laws, regulations, policies, and standards, such as the GDPR and the PIPEDA1234.

Data owners are in the best position to determine the purpose and necessity of collecting and retaining data, as well as the risks and benefits associated with it1.

Data owners should consult with other stakeholders, such as the risk manager, the database administrator (DBA), and the privacy manager, to establish and implement appropriate data classification policies and procedures2.

Data classification is the process of organizing data in groups based on their attributes and characteristics, and then assigning class labels that describe a set of attributes that hold true for the corresponding data sets345.

Data classification helps organizations to identify, manage, protect, and understand their data, as well as to comply with modern data privacy regulations345.

Data classification also helps to determine appropriate user access levels, which means defining who can access, modify, share, or delete data based on their roles, responsibilities, and needs345.

Determining appropriate user access levels is the most important responsibility of data owners when implementing a data classification process, as it ensures that only authorized and legitimate users can access sensitive or important data. This provides confidentiality, integrity, availability, and accountability of data345.

Reviewing emergency changes to data (option A), authorizing application code changes (option B), and implementing access rules over database tables (option D) are not the most important responsibilities of data owners when implementing a data classification process. These are more related to the operational aspects of data management, which are usually delegated to other roles, such as the DBA or the IT staff. The data owner should oversee and approve these activities, but not perform them directly1.

Source code synchronization is the process of ensuring that the source code and the object code (the compiled version of the source code) are consistent and up-to-date1. When program changes are implemented, the source code should be recompiled to generate a new object code that reflects the changes. However, if the source code is not recompiled, there is a risk that the object code may be outdated or incorrect. A compensating control is a measure that reduces the risk of an existing control weakness or deficiency2. A compensating control for source code synchronization is to compare the date stamping of the source and object code. Date stamping is a method of recording the date and time when a file is created or modified3. By comparing the date stamping of the source and object code, one can verify if they are synchronized or not. If the date stamping of the source code is newer than the object code, it means that the source code has been changed but not recompiled. If the date stamping of the object code is newer than the source code, it means that the object code has been compiled from a different source code. If the date stamping of both files are identical, it means that they are synchronized.