CISA Isaca Certified Information Systems Auditor Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

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

The most critical factor for the success of an information security program is management’s commitment to information security. Management’s commitment to information security means that the senior management supports, sponsors, funds, monitors and enforces the information security program within the organization. Management’s commitment to information security also demonstrates leadership, sets the tone and culture, and establishes the strategic direction and objectives for information security. User accountability for information security, alignment of information security with IT objectives, and integration of business and information security are also important factors for the success of an information security program, but they are not as critical as management’s commitment to information security, as they depend on or derive from it. References: Info Technology & Systems Resources | COBIT, Risk, Governance … - ISACA, IT Governance and Process Maturity

Given the large volume of data transactions, continuous monitoring is the best testing strategy for auditing the inventory control process. Continuous monitoring involves the automated review of operational and financial data to identify anomalies or areas of concern12. This approach allows for real-time identification and resolution of issues, making it particularly effective for large organizations with high transaction volumes12.

A post-implementation review (PIR) is a process to evaluate whetherthe objectives of the project were met, determine how effectively this wasachieved, learn lessons for the future, and ensure that the organisation gets the most benefit from the implementation of projects1. A PIR is an important tool for assessing the success and value of a project, as well as identifying the areas for improvement and best practices for future projects.

One of the key elements of a PIR is to measure the benefits of the project against the expected outcomes and benefits that were defined at the beginning of the project. Measurable benefits are the quantifiable and verifiable results or outcomes that the project delivers to theorganisation or its stakeholders, such as increased revenue, reduced costs, improved quality, enhanced customer satisfaction, or compliance with regulations2. Measurable benefits should be aligned with the organisation’s strategy, vision, and goals, and should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound).

The finding that measurable benefits were not defined is of greatest significance among the four findings, because it implies that:

The project did not have a clear and agreed-upon purpose, scope, objectives, and deliverables

The project did not have a valid and realistic business case or justification for its initiation and implementation

The project did not have a robust and effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism to track its progress, performance, and impact

The project did not have a reliable and transparent way to demonstrate its value proposition and return on investment to the organisation or its stakeholders

The project did not have a meaningful and actionable way to learn from its achievements and challenges, and to improve its processes and practices

Therefore, an IS auditor should recommend that measurable benefits are defined for any project before its implementation, and that they are reviewed and reported regularly during and after the project’s completion.

The other possible findings are:

A lessons-learned session was never conducted: This is a significant finding, but not as significant as the lack of measurable benefits. A lessons-learned session is a process of capturing and documenting the knowledge, experience, and feedback gained from a project, both positive and negative. A lessons-learned session helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the project management process, as well as the best practices and lessons for future projects. A lessons-learned session should be conducted at the end of each project phase or milestone, as well as at the end of the project. However, even without a formal lessons-learned session, some learning may still occur informally or implicitly among the project team members or stakeholders.

The projects 10% budget overrun was not reported to senior management: This is a significant finding, but not as significant as the lack of measurable benefits. A budget overrun is a situation where the actual cost of a project exceeds its planned or estimated cost. A budget overrun may indicate poor planning, estimation, or control of the project resources, or unexpected changes or risks that occurred during the project implementation. A budget overrun should be reported to senior management as soon as possible, along with the reasons for it and the corrective actions taken or proposed. However, a budget overrun may not necessarily affect the quality or value of the project deliverables or outcomes if they are still within acceptable standards or expectations.

Monthly dashboards did not always contain deliverables: This is a significant finding, but not as significant as the lack of measurable benefits. A dashboard is a visual tool that displays key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics related to a project’s progress, status, or results. A dashboard helps to monitor and communicate the performance of a project to various stakeholders in a concise and clear manner. A dashboard should include deliverables as one of its components, along with other elements such as schedule, budget, quality, risks, issues, or benefits. However, even without deliverables in monthly dashboards, some information about them may still be available from other sources such as reports or documents.

Assessing and tracking all compliance audit findings is the best way to support the effectiveness of a compliance program. This allows an organization to identify areas of non-compliance, take corrective action, and monitor improvements over time12. While implementing an awareness plan, using a governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) tool, and monitoring applicable regulations can contribute to a compliance program, they do not provide the same level of continuous improvement and effectiveness as assessing and tracking audit findings.

The most significant benefit of implementing a control self-assessment (CSA) program and leveraging the internal audit function to test its internal controls annually is that risks are detected earlier. A CSA program is a process that enables business owners and managers to assess and improve their own internal controls on a regular basis, without relying on external auditors or consultants. A CSA program can help identify and mitigate risks, enhance performance, increase accountability, and foster a culture of control within the organization. By leveraging the internal audit function to test its internal controls annually, a small business unit can also obtain independent assurance and validation of its CSA results, as well as recommendations for improvement. This approach can help reduce compliance costs, as external audits may be less frequent or extensive. However, this is not the most significant benefit, as compliance costs are only one aspect of the total cost of risk. Business owners can also focus more on their core roles, as they can delegate some of their control responsibilities to their staff or teams through CSA. However, this is not the most significant benefit, as business owners still need to oversee and monitor their CSA activities and results, and ensure that they align with their strategic objectives and priorities. Line management may also be more motivated to avoid control exceptions, as they are directly involved in assessing and improving their own controls through CSA. However, this is not the most significant benefit, as motivation alone may not be sufficient to ensure effective control design and operation. References: Info Technology & Systems Resources | COBIT, Risk, Governance … - ISACA, IT Governance and Process Maturity

A post-implementation change review is the best compensating control against segregation of duties conflicts in new code development. This process involves a thorough review of the changes after they have been implemented to ensure that they meet their objectives and that the stakeholders are satisfied with the results1. It provides an opportunity to identify and correct any issues or conflicts that may have arisen during the development and implementation process. While other options like adding developers to the change approval board, limiting code deployment access to a small number of people, and creating staging environments can also serve as compensating controls, a post-implementation change review provides a more comprehensive and effective control mechanism21.

The role of a document owner when implementing a data classification policy in an organization is to classify documents to correctly reflect the level of sensitivity of information they contain. A document owner is the person who is ultimately responsible for the creation, maintenance, and protection of a document, usually a member of senior management or a business unit1. A data classification policy is a plan that defines how the organization categorizesits data based on its value, risk, and regulatory requirements, and how it handles and secures each data category2.

According to the data classification policy template by Netwrix3, one of the roles and responsibilities of the document owner is to assign data classification labels based on the data’s potential impact level. Data classification labels are tags or markings that indicate the sensitivity level of the data, such as public, internal, confidential, or restricted. The document owner should apply the data classification labels to the documents that contain the data, either manually or automatically, using tools and methods such as metadata, watermarks, headers, footers, or encryption. The document owner should also review and update the data classification labels periodically or whenever there is a change in the data’s sensitivity level.

By classifying documents to correctly reflect the level of sensitivity of information they contain, the document owner can help to ensure that the documents are handled in accordance with the data classification policy. This means that the documents are stored, accessed, shared, transmitted, and disposed of in a secure and appropriate manner, based on the rules and controls defined for each data category. This can also help to prevent data loss, leakage, or breach incidents that may cause harm or damage to the organization or its stakeholders.

Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

Substantive testing © provides the best evidence of the validity and integrity of logs in an organization’s security information and event management (SIEM) system, because it is a type of audit testing that directly examines the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the data and transactions recorded in the logs. Substantive testing can involve various methods, such as re-performance, inspection, observation, inquiry, or computer-assisted audit techniques (CAATs), to verify the existence, occurrence, valuation, ownership, presentation, and disclosure of the log data1. Substantive testing canalso detect any errors, omissions, alterations, or manipulations of the log data that may indicate fraud or misstatement2.

Compliance testing (A) is not the best evidence of the validity and integrity of logs in an organization’s SIEM system, because it is a type of audit testing that evaluates the design and effectiveness of the internal controls that are implemented to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. Compliance testing can involve various methods, such as walkthroughs, questionnaires, checklists, or flowcharts, to assess the adequacy, consistency, and operation of the internal controls1. Compliance testing can provide assurance that the log data are generated and processed in accordance with the established rules and standards, but it does not directly verify the accuracy and reliability of the log data itself2.

Stop-or-go sampling (B) is not a type of audit testing, but a type of sampling technique that auditors use to select a sample from a population for testing. Stop-or-go sampling is a sequential sampling technique that allows auditors to stop testing before reaching the predetermined sample size if the results are satisfactory or conclusive. Stop-or-go sampling can reduce the audit cost and time by avoiding unnecessary testing, but it can also increase the sampling risk and uncertainty by relying on a smaller sample3. Stop-or-go sampling does not provide any evidence of the validity and integrity of logs in an organization’s SIEM system by itself; it depends on the type and quality of the audit tests performed on the selected sample.

Variable sampling (D) is not a type of audit testing, but a type of sampling technique that auditors use to estimate a numerical characteristic of a population for testing. Variable sampling is a statistical sampling technique that allows auditors to measure the amount or rate of error or deviation in a population by using quantitative methods. Variable sampling can provide precise and objective results by using mathematical formulas and confidence intervals4. Variable sampling does not provide any evidence of the validity and integrity of logs in an organization’s SIEM system by itself; it depends on the type and quality of the audit tests performed on the selected sample.

A post-implementation review (PIR) is a process to evaluatewhether the objectives of the project were met, determine how effectively this wasachieved, learn lessons for the future, and ensure that the organisation gets the most benefit from the implementation of projects1. A PIR is an important tool for assessing the success and value of a project, as well as identifying the areas for improvement and best practices for future projects.

One of the key elements of a PIR is to measure the benefits of the project against the expected outcomes and benefits that were defined at the beginning of the project. Measurable benefits are the quantifiable and verifiable results or outcomes that the project delivers to theorganisation or its stakeholders, such as increased revenue, reduced costs, improved quality, enhanced customer satisfaction, or compliance with regulations2. Measurable benefits should be aligned with the organisation’s strategy, vision, and goals, and should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound).

The finding that measurable benefits were not defined is of greatest significance among the four findings, because it implies that:

The project did not have a clear and agreed-upon purpose, scope, objectives, and deliverables

The project did not have a valid and realistic business case or justification for its initiation and implementation

The project did not have a robust and effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism to track its progress, performance, and impact

The project did not have a reliable and transparent way to demonstrate its value proposition and return on investment to the organisation or its stakeholders

The project did not have a meaningful and actionable way to learn from its achievements and challenges, and to improve its processes and practices

Therefore, an IS auditor should recommend that measurable benefits are defined for any project before its implementation, and that they are reviewed and reported regularly during and after the project’s completion.

The other possible findings are:

A lessons-learned session was never conducted: This is a significant finding, but not as significant as the lack of measurable benefits. A lessons-learned session is a process of capturing and documenting the knowledge, experience, and feedback gained from a project, both positive and negative. A lessons-learned session helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the project management process, as well as the best practices and lessons for future projects. A lessons-learned session should be conducted at the end of each projectphase or milestone, as well as at the end of the project. However, even without a formal lessons-learned session, some learning may still occur informally or implicitly among the project team members or stakeholders.

The projects 10% budget overrun was not reported to senior management: This is a significant finding, but not as significant as the lack of measurable benefits. A budget overrun is a situation where the actual cost of a project exceeds its planned or estimated cost. A budget overrun may indicate poor planning, estimation, or control of the project resources, or unexpected changes or risks that occurred during the project implementation. A budget overrun should be reported to senior management as soon as possible, along with the reasons for it and the corrective actions taken or proposed. However, a budget overrun may not necessarily affect the quality or value of the project deliverables or outcomes if they are still within acceptable standards or expectations.

Monthly dashboards did not always contain deliverables: This is a significant finding, but not as significant as the lack of measurable benefits. A dashboard is a visual tool that displays key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics related to a project’s progress, status, or results. A dashboard helps to monitor and communicate the performance of a project to various stakeholders in a concise and clear manner. A dashboard should include deliverables as one of its components, along with other elements such as schedule, budget, quality, risks, issues, or benefits. However, even without deliverables in monthly dashboards, some information about them may still be available from other sources such as reports or documents.

The auditor’s best recommendation is D. Introduce problem management into incident response. Problem management is a practice that aims to identify, analyze, and resolve the root causes of recurring incidents, and prevent or reduce their impact in the future1. Problem management can help improve the resolution times for recurring incidents by eliminating or mitigating the underlying problems that cause them, and by providing permanent solutions that can be reused or automated2. Problem management can also help improve the quality and efficiency of incident response by reducing the workload and complexity of dealing with repetitive issues2.

Stress testing is designed to evaluate a system’s performance under extreme conditions1. It is typically carried out in a test environment that closely mirrors the production environment, using production workloads1. This approach ensures that the test results accurately reflect how the system would perform under similar conditions in the production environment1. Using a test environment also prevents any disruptions or damage to the production environment during testing1.

 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 third-party contract has not been reviewed by the legal department is the auditor’s greatest concern because it poses a significant legal and financial risk to the client. A third-party contract is a legally binding agreement between the client and the outsourced payroll provider that defines the scope, terms, and conditions of the service. A third-party contract should be reviewed by the legal department to ensure that it complies with the applicable laws and regulations, protects the client’s interests and rights, and specifies the roles and responsibilities of both parties. A third-party contract that has not been reviewed by the legal department may contain clauses that are unfavorable, ambiguous, or contradictory to the client, such as:

Inadequate or unclear service level agreements (SLAs) that do not specify the quality, timeliness, and accuracy of the payroll service.

Insufficient or vague security and confidentiality provisions that do not safeguard the client’s data and information from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, or loss.

Unreasonable or excessive fees, penalties, or liabilities that may impose an undue financial burden on the client.

Limited or no audit rights that may prevent the client from verifying the effectiveness and compliance of the payroll provider’s internal controls.

Inflexible or restrictive termination clauses that may limit the client’s ability to cancel or switch to another payroll provider.

A third-party contract that has not been reviewed by the legal department may expose the client to various risks, such as:

Legal disputes or litigation with the payroll provider over contractual breaches or performance issues.

Regulatory fines or sanctions for noncompliance with tax, labor, or other laws and regulations related to payroll.

Financial losses or damages due to errors, fraud, or negligence by the payroll provider.

Reputation damage or customer dissatisfaction due to payroll errors or delays.

Therefore, an IS auditor should be highly concerned about a third-party contract that has not been reviewed by the legal department and recommend that the client seek legal advice before signing or renewing any contract with an outsourced payroll provider.

User access rights have not been periodically reviewed by the client is a moderate concern because it may indicate a lack of proper access control over the payroll system. User access rights are the permissions granted to users to access, view, modify, or delete data and information in the payroll system. User access rights should be periodically reviewed by the client to ensure that they are aligned with the user’s roles and responsibilities, and that they are revoked or modified when a user changes roles or leaves the organization. User access rights that are not periodically reviewed by the client may result in unauthorized or inappropriate access to payroll data and information, which may compromise its confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Payroll processing costs have not been included in the IT budget is a minor concern because it may indicate a lack of proper planning and allocation of IT resources for payroll processing. Payroll processing costs are the expenses incurred by the client for using an outsourced payroll service, such as fees, charges, taxes, or penalties. Payroll processing costs should be included in the IT budget to ensure that they are adequately estimated, monitored, and controlled. Payroll processing costs that are not included in the IT budget may result in unexpected or excessive costs for payroll processing, which may affect the client’s profitability and cash flow.

The third-party contract does not comply with the vendor management policy is a low concern because it may indicate a lack of alignment between the client’s vendor management policy and its actual vendor selection and evaluation process. A vendor management policy is a set of guidelines and procedures that governs how the client manages its relationship with its vendors, such as how to select, monitor, evaluate, and terminate vendors. A vendor management policy should be consistent with the client’s business objectives, risk appetite, and regulatory requirements. A third-party contract that does not comply with the vendor management policy may result in suboptimal vendor performance or service quality, but it does not necessarily imply a breach of contract or a violation of law.

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.

Before sending backup drives to an offsite storage facility, the most important thing to do is to encrypt the drive with strong protection standards. This is because encryption ensures effective security where information cannot be intercepted and used to harm the organization or its customers. Encryption also protects the data from unauthorized access, modification, or deletion in case the drive is lost, stolen, or damaged during transit or storage. Encryption of backup drives is especially important for public safety organizations that handle sensitive or personally identifiable information, such as medical records, criminal records, or emergency communications12.

The most helpful thing for an IS auditor to review when evaluating an organization’s business processes that are supported by applications and IT systems is the enterprise architecture (EA). EA is the practice of designing a business with a holistic view, considering all of its parts and how they interact. EA defines the overall goals, the strategies that support those goals, and the tactics that are needed to execute those strategies. EA also outlines the ways various components of IT projects interact with one another and with the business processes. By reviewing the EA, an IS auditor can gain a comprehensive understanding of how the organization aligns its IT efforts with its overall mission, business strategy, and priorities. An IS auditor can also assess the effectiveness, efficiency, agility, and continuity of complex business operations.

The other options are not as helpful as option B. A configuration management database (CMDB) is a database that stores and manages information about the components that make up an IT system. A CMDB tracks individual configuration items (CIs), such as hardware, software, or data assets, and their attributes, dependencies, and changes over time. A CMDB can help an IS auditor to monitor the performance, availability, and configuration of IT assets, but it does not provide a holistic view of how they support the business processes. IT portfolio management is the practice of managing IT investments, projects, and activities as a portfolio. IT portfolio management aims to optimize the value, risk, and cost of IT initiatives and align them with the business objectives. IT portfolio management can help an IS auditor to evaluate the return on IT investments and the alignment of IT projects with the business strategy, but it does not provide a detailed view of how they support the business processes. IT service management (ITSM) is the practice of planning, implementing, managing, and optimizing IT services to meet the needs of end users and customers. ITSM focuses on delivering IT as a service using standardized processes and best practices. ITSM can help an IS auditor to review the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of IT service delivery and support, but it does not provide a comprehensive view of how they support the business processes. References: What is enterprise architecture (EA)? - RingCentral, What is a configuration management database (CMDB)? - Red Hat, IT Portfolio Management Strategies | Smartsheet, What is IT service management (ITSM)? | IBM

When identifying which servers are no longer required, reviewing server CPU usage trends is the most helpful approach. Monitoring the CPU usage over time provides insights into how actively a server is being utilized. Servers with consistently low CPU usage may be candidates for consolidation or decommissioning. By analyzing CPU utilization patterns, IT management can make informed decisions about which servers can be retired without impacting performance or availability1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality control reviews are the best way to demonstrate to senior management and the board that an audit function is compliant with standards and the code of ethics. Thesereviews assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the audit function, ensure compliance with audit standards and ethics, and identify areasfor improvement12. While audit staff interviews, control self-assessments (CSAs), and corrective action plans can provide valuable insights, they do not offer the same level of assurance as a comprehensive quality control review12.

The most beneficial stage of the system development life cycle (SDLC) to consider data privacy principles is D. Requirements definition. This is because data privacy principles should be integrated into the design and development of customer-facing IT applications from the very beginning, not as an afterthought or a retrofit1. By considering data privacy principles in the requirements definition stage, the developers can identify the personal data that will be collected, processed, stored, and shared by the application, and ensure that they comply with the relevant laws and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2. They can also apply the principles of data minimization, purpose limitation, transparency, consent, and security to protect the privacy rights and interests of the customers3.

The first step when developing a DLP solution for a large organization is to conduct a data inventory and classification exercise. This step involves identifying and locating all the data assets that the organization owns, generates, or handles, and assigning them to different categories based on their sensitivity, value, and regulatory requirements1. Data inventory and classification is essential for DLP because it helps to determine the scope and objectives of the DLP solution, as well as the appropriate level of protection and monitoring for each data category2. Data inventory and classification also enables the organization to prioritize its DLP efforts based on the risk and impact of data loss or leakage3.

Option B is not correct because identifying approved data workflows across the enterprise is a subsequent step after conducting data inventory and classification. Data workflows are the processes and channels through which data are created, stored, accessed, shared, or transmitted within or outside the organization4. Identifying approved data workflows helps to define the normal and legitimate use of data, as well as to detect and prevent unauthorized or anomalous data activities5. However, before identifying approved data workflows, the organization needs to know what data it has and how it should be classified.

Option C is not correct because conducting a threat analysis against sensitive data usage is another subsequent step after conducting data inventory and classification. Threat analysis is the process of identifying and assessing the potential sources, methods, and impacts of data loss or leakage incidents. Threat analysis helps to design and implement effective DLP controls and countermeasures based on the risk profile of each data category. However, before conducting threat analysis, the organization needs to know what data it has and how it should be classified.

Option D is not correct because creating the DLP policies and templates is the final step after conducting data inventory and classification, identifying approved data workflows, and conducting threat analysis. DLP policies and templates are the rules and configurations that specify how the DLP solution should monitor, detect, report, and respond to data loss or leakage events. DLP policies and templates should be aligned with the organization’s business needs, regulatory obligations, and risk appetite. However, before creating the DLP policies and templates, the organization needs to know what data it has, how it should be classified, how it should be used, and what threats it faces.

The performance and reliability of a job scheduling tool can be significantly affected if maintenance patches and the latest enhancement upgrades are missing1. These patches and upgrades often contain fixes for known issues and improvements to the tool’s functionality. If they are not applied, the tool may continue to exhibit known problems or fail to benefit from enhancements that could improve its performance and reliability1. While factors like administrator password requirements23, number of support staff45, and tool classification64 can impact various aspects of a tool’s operation, they are less likely to be the direct cause of performance and reliability problems.

The primary objective of a control self-assessment (CSA) is to educate functional areas on risks and controls. CSA is a technique that allows managers and work teams directly involved in business units, functions or processes to participate in assessing the organization’s risk management and control processes1. CSA can help functional areas to obtain a clear and shared understanding of their major activities and objectives, to foster an improved awareness of risk and controls among management and staff, to enhance responsibility and accountability for risks and controls, and to highlight best practices and opportunities to improve business performance2.

The other options are not the primary objective of a CSA. Ensuring appropriate access controls are implemented is a specific type of control that may be assessed by a CSA, but it is not the main goal of the technique. Eliminating the audit risk by leveraging management’s analysis is not a realistic or desirable outcome of a CSA, as audit risk can never be completely eliminated, and management’s analysis may not be sufficient or reliable without independent verification. Gaining assurance for business functions that cannot be audited is not a valid reason for conducting a CSA, as all business functions should be subject to audit, and a CSA is not a substitute for an audit.

Support should be given the greatest consideration when implementing the use of an open-source product, as open-source software may not have the same level of technical support, maintenance, and updates as proprietary software1. Open-source software users may have to rely on the community of developers and users, online forums, or third-party vendors for support, which may not be timely, reliable, or consistent2. Therefore, before implementing an open-source product, users should evaluate the availability and quality of support options, such as documentation, forums, mailing lists, bug trackers, chat channels, etc.3

A computer-assisted technique is the most helpful method for an IS auditor to determine whether duplicate vendor payments exist on a complex system with a high volume of transactions. A computer-assisted technique is a tool or procedure that can be used to perform audit tests or procedures on data stored in electronic form. Examples of computer-assisted techniques include data analysis software, query tools, scripting languages, and specialized audit software. A computer-assisted techniquecan help an IS auditor to identify and extract duplicate payments from a large data set, perform calculations and comparisons, and generate reports and summaries. A computer-assisted technique can also provide more accuracy, efficiency, and coverage than manual methods.

Stratified sampling, statistical sampling, and process walk-through are not as helpful as a computer-assisted technique for this purpose. Stratified sampling is a sampling method that divides the population into subgroups based on certain characteristics and selects samples from each subgroup. Statistical sampling is a sampling method that uses probability theory to determine the sample size and selection criteria. Process walk-through is a review technique that involves following a transaction or process from start to finish and observing the inputs, outputs, controls, and documentation. These methods may be useful for other audit objectives, but they are not as effective as a computer-assisted technique for detecting duplicate payments in a complex and high-volume system. References: ISACA Frameworks: Blueprints for Success, [ISACA Glossary of Terms]

 An acceptable use policy (AUP) is a document that defines the rules and guidelines for using an organization’s IT resources, such as networks, devices, and software. It aims to protect the organization’s assets, security, and productivity. An AUP should be formally acknowledged by users to ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities and obligations when using the IT resources. Without formal acknowledgment, users may not be held accountable for violating the AUP or may claim ignorance of the policy. This can expose the organization to legal, regulatory, reputational, or operational risks. Lack of data for measuring compliance, violation of industry standards, and noncompliance with documentation requirements are also possible risks from not having users acknowledge the AUP, but they are less significant than lack of user accountability. References: Workable: Acceptable use policy template, Wikipedia: Acceptable use policy

This method is known as creating a digital signature of the message. It ensures the integrity of the message by verifying that it has not been tampered with in transit. The process involves hashing the message and encrypting the hash value with the sender’s private key. Any changes to the message will result in a different hash value1. This method is used in DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM), which verifies an email’s domain and helps show that the email has not been tampered with in transit2.

Data analytics is the process of collecting, transforming, analyzing, and visualizing data to gain insights and support decision making1. Data analytics can be used to facilitate the testing of a new account creation process by applying various techniques and methods to evaluate the quality, functionality, performance, and security of the process. One of the approaches that would utilize data analytics to test the new account creation process is to review new account applications submitted in the past month for invalid dates of birth. This approach would involve the following steps:

Extract the data of new account applications from the source system, such as a database or a web service, using appropriate tools and methods.

Transform and clean the data to ensure its accuracy, completeness, consistency, and validity, using techniques such as data profiling, data cleansing, data mapping, and data validation2.

Analyze the data to identify any anomalies, errors, or outliers in the date of birth field, using methods such as descriptive statistics, exploratory data analysis, hypothesis testing, or anomaly detection3.

Visualize the data to present the findings and insights in a clear and understandable way, using tools and techniques such as charts, graphs, dashboards, or reports.

By reviewing new account applications submitted in the past month for invalid dates of birth, the tester can use data analytics to:

Verify if the new account creation process is working as expected and meets the business requirements and specifications for the date of birth field.

Detect any defects or issues in the new account creation process that may cause invalid dates of birth to be accepted or rejected incorrectly.

Measure and monitor the performance and reliability of the new account creation process in terms of data quality, accuracy, and completeness.

Evaluate and improve the test coverage and effectiveness of the new account creation process by identifying any gaps or risks in the test cases or scenarios.

Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

Option A is not correct because attempting to submit new account applications with invalid dates of birth is not a data analytics approach, but a functional testing approach that involves executing test cases or scenarios manually or automatically to validate the behavior and functionality of the new account creation process. Option B is not correct because reviewing the business requirements document for date of birth field requirements is not a data analytics approach, but a requirements analysis approach that involves examining and understanding the needs and expectations of the stakeholders for the new account creation process. Option D is not correct because evaluating configuration settings for date of birth field requirements is not a data analytics approach, but a configuration testing approach that involves verifying if the settings and parameters of the new account creation process are correct and consistent with the requirements.

The most important consideration for patching mission critical business application servers against known vulnerabilities is A. Patches are implemented in a test environment prior to rollout into production. This is because patching mission critical business application servers involves a high level of risk and complexity, and requires careful planning and testing before applying the patches to the live environment. Patches may introduce new bugs, errors, or conflicts that could affect the functionality, performance, or security of the application servers, and cause system downtime, data loss, or business disruption1. Therefore, it is essential to implement patches in atest environment first, where the patches can be verified and validated for their effectiveness and compatibility, and any issues or defects can be identified and resolved before they impact the production environment2.

This is because the follow-up of agreed corrective actions for reported audit issues should be done after the auditee has had enough time to implement the corrective actions and demonstrate their effectiveness and sustainability. The follow-up audit should not be too soon or too late, but based on a reasonable and realistic timeframe that allows for adequate testing and verification of the control operation12.

Answer A. Progress updates indicate that the implementation of agreed actions is on track. is not the best answer, because progress updates are not sufficient to guide the follow-up audit timing. Progress updates are useful for monitoring and communicating the status and challenges of the corrective actions, but they do not provide conclusive evidence of the control operation. The follow-up audit should be based on actual results and outcomes, not on expectations or projections12.

Answer C. Business management has completed the implementation of agreed actions on schedule. is not the best answer, because the completion of the implementation of agreed actions is not enough to guide the follow-up audit timing. The completion of the implementation only indicates that the auditee has taken the necessary steps to address the audit issues, but it does not guarantee that the corrective actions are effective and sustainable. The follow-up audit should be based on the evaluation and validation of the control operation, not on the completion of the control implementation12.

Answer D. Regulators have announced a timeline for an inspection visit. is not the best answer, because the regulators’ inspection visit is not relevant to guide the follow-up audit timing. The regulators’ inspection visit is an external factor that may or may not coincide with the internal follow-up audit schedule. The follow-up audit should be based on the internal audit plan and objectives, not on the external audit requirements or expectations12.

The IS auditor should first determine whether the business impact analysis (BIA) is current with the organization’s structure and context. The BIA is a critical component of the BCP and should reflect the current state of the organization. If the BIA is not up-to-date, it may not accurately reflect the impact of a disruption to the organization’s operations, including the closure of a production plant12.

 The best action that audit management should consider first is to reassign the audit to an internal audit subject matter expert. This is because cloud service audits require specialized knowledge and skills to assess the risks and controls associated with the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. An IS auditor who is unfamiliar with the technologies in use and their associated risks to the business may not be able to perform an effective and efficient audit, and may miss important issues or provide inaccurate recommendations. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the IS auditor assigned to the cloud service audit has the appropriate competence and experience.

The other options are not as good as reassigning the audit to an internal audit subject matter expert. Conducting a follow-up audit after a suitable period has elapsed may not address the quality issues of the initial audit, and may also delay the identification and remediation of any problems. Rescheduling the audit assignment for the next financial year may expose the organization to unnecessary risks and may not meet the audit objectives or expectations. Extending the duration of the audit to give the auditor more time may not be feasible or cost-effective, and may not guarantee that the auditor will acquire the necessary knowledge and skills in time.

 The best recommendation to mitigate the risk of eavesdropping associated with an API integration implementation is to implement Transport Layer Security (TLS). TLS is a cryptographic protocol that provides secure communication over a network by encrypting the data in transit and authenticating the parties involved. TLS can prevent unauthorized parties from intercepting, modifying or tampering with the data exchanged between the API endpoints. Encrypting the XML file, implementing SOAP, and masking the API endpoints are not sufficient to mitigate the risk of eavesdropping, as they do not provide end-to-end encryption or authentication for the API communication. References: IS Auditand Assurance Tools and Techniques, CISA Certification | Certified Information Systems Auditor | ISACA

The most important action before the audit work begins is to establish control objectives. Control objectives are the specific goals or outcomes that the audit intends to achieve or verify in relation to the information protection in the application1. Control objectives provide the basis for designing and performing the audit procedures, evaluating the audit evidence, and reporting the audit findings and recommendations2. Control objectives also help to align the audit scope and criteria with the business needs and expectations, and to ensure that the audit is relevant, reliable, and efficient3.

Some examples of control objectives for an information protection audit are:

To ensure that the information stored in the application is classified according to its sensitivity, value, and regulatory requirements

To ensure that the information stored in the application is encrypted, masked, or anonymized as appropriate

To ensure that the information stored in the application is accessible only by authorized users and processes

To ensure that the information stored in the application is backed up, restored, and retained according to the business continuity and retention policies

To ensure that the information stored in the application is monitored, logged, and audited for any unauthorized or anomalous activities

Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

Option A is not correct because reviewing remediation reports is not the most important action before the audit work begins. Remediation reports are documents that describe how previous audit findings or issues have been resolved or addressed by the auditee4. While reviewing remediation reports may be useful for understanding the current state of information protection in the application, it is not a prerequisite for defining the control objectives of the audit.

Option C is not correct because assessing the threat landscape is not the most important action before the audit work begins. The threat landscape is the set of potential sources, methods, and impacts of cyberattacks or data breaches that may affect the information stored in the application5. While assessing the threat landscape may be helpful for identifying and prioritizing the risks and vulnerabilities of information protection in the application, it is not a prerequisite for defining the control objectives of the audit.

Option D is not correct because performing penetration testing is not the most important action before the audit work begins. Penetration testing is a technique that simulates real-world cyberattacks or data breaches to test the security and resilience of information systems or applications. 

According to the CISA - Certified Information Systems Auditor Study Guide1, the correct answer to your question is A. Encrypt the disk drive. This is because encryption is a logical security measure that can protect data even if the physical device is stolen or lost. Encryption makes thedata unreadable and inaccessible without the proper key or password. The other options are not as effective as encryption in this scenario. Two-factor authentication is a user authentication method that requires two pieces of evidence to verify the user’s identity, such as a password and a code sent to a phone. However, this does not prevent unauthorized access to the data if the laptop is already logged in or if the attacker can bypass the authentication. Enhancing physical security is a preventive measure that can reduce the risk of theft, but it does not guarantee that theft will not occur or that the data will be safe if it does. Requiring the use of cable locks is another preventive measure that can deter thieves, but it can also be easily cut or removed by a determined attacker.

The most useful thing to do when planning to audit an organization’s compliance with cybersecurity regulations in foreign countries is to map the different regulatory requirements to the organization’s IT governance framework. This is because an IT governance framework is a roadmap that defines the methods used by an organization to implement, manage and report on IT governance within said organization1. IT governance helps align business and IT strategies using a solid and formal framework2. By mapping the different regulatory requirements to the IT governance framework, the auditor can:

Identify the commonalities and differences among the various cybersecurity regulations that apply to the organization’s operations in different countries.

Assess the level of compliance and maturity of the organization’s IT governance practices against each regulatory requirement.

Evaluate the risks and gaps associated with non-compliance or partial compliance with any of the regulatory requirements.

Recommend appropriate actions or improvements to enhance the organization’s IT governance and cybersecurity posture.

Option D is correct because mapping the different regulatory requirements to the organization’s IT governance framework is a systematic and effective way to plan and conduct an audit of compliance with cybersecurity regulations in foreign countries.

Automated version control systems are the best method to maintain an audit trail of changes made to the source code of a program. They automatically track and manage changes to the source code over time, allowing you to see what changes were made, when they were made, and who made them1. This provides a clear and detailed audit trail that can be invaluable for debugging, understanding the evolution of the code, and ensuring accountability23.

 File checksums are values that are calculated from the contents of a file and can detect any changes or corruption in the file. They are used to verify that the files that are transferred or processed through system interfaces are not altered in any way. File checksums are more effective than periodic audits, file counts, or IT operator monitoring, which are other types of controls that can help ensure the integrity of system interfaces, but they are not as reliable or timely as file checksums.

The greatest resulting impact of project reporting not accurately reflecting current progress is that the project steering committee cannot provide effective governance. The project steering committee is a group of senior executives or stakeholders who oversee the project and provide strategic direction, guidance, and support. The project steering committee relies on accurate and timely project reporting to monitor the project’s status, performance, risks, issues, and changes. If the project reporting is inaccurate, the project steering committee cannot make informed decisions, resolve problems, allocate resources, or ensure alignment with the organizational goals and objectives.

The other options are not as impactful as option C. The project manager will have to be replaced is a possible consequence, but not the greatest impact, of inaccurate project reporting. The project manager is responsible for planning, executing, monitoring, controlling, and closing the project. The project manager may face disciplinary actions or termination if they fail to provide accurate and honest project reporting. However, this does not necessarily affect the overall governance of the project. The project reporting to the board of directors will be incomplete is a potential risk, but not the greatest impact, of inaccurate project reporting. The board of directors is the highest governing body of an organization that sets the vision, mission, values, and policies. The board of directors may receive periodic orad hoc project reporting to ensure that the project is aligned with the organizational strategy and delivers value. If the project reporting is inaccurate, the board of directors may lose confidence in the project or intervene in its management. However, this does not directly affect the day-to-day governance of the project. The project will not withstand a quality assurance (QA) review is a possible outcome, but not the greatest impact, of inaccurate project reporting. A quality assurance review is a process to evaluate the quality of the project’s processes and deliverables against predefined standards and criteria. A quality assurance review may reveal discrepancies or errors in the project reporting that may affect the credibility and reliability of the project. However, this does not necessarily affect the governance of the project. References: Project Steering Committee - Roles &Responsibilities, Project Reporting Best Practices, Quality Assurance in Project Management

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

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

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

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

The scanning will not degrade system performance. This is the most important consideration when establishing vulnerability scanning on critical IT infrastructure, because any degradation of system performance could affect the availability, reliability, and functionality of the IT services that depend on the infrastructure. Scanning during non-peak hours (A) could reduce the impact of scanning on system performance, but it does not guarantee that the scanning will not cause any degradation. Scanning followed by penetration testing (B) could provide more in-depth information about the vulnerabilities and their exploitability, but it does not address the potential impact of scanning on system performance. Scanning cost-effectiveness © is a relevant factor for choosing a scanning service or tool, but it is not as important as ensuring that the scanning will not compromise the system performance.

A project deliverable is a tangible or intangible product or service that is produced as a result of a project and delivered to the customer or stakeholder. A project deliverable can be either an intermediate deliverable that is part of the project process or a final deliverable that is the outcome of the project.

An agile software development methodology is a project management approach that involves breaking the project into phases and emphasizes continuous collaboration and improvement. Teams follow a cycle of planning, executing, and evaluating. Agile software development methodologies value working software over comprehensive documentation and respond to change over following a plan.

Rapidly created working prototypes are most likely to be a project deliverable of an agile software development methodology because they:

Provide early and frequent feedback from customers and stakeholders on the functionality and usability of the software product

Allow for rapid validation and verification of the software requirements and design

Enable continuous improvement and adaptation of the software product based on changing customer needs and expectations

Reduce the risk of delivering a software product that does not meet customer needs or expectations

Increase customer satisfaction and trust by delivering working software products frequently and consistently

Some examples of agile software development methodologies that use rapidly created working prototypes as project deliverables are:

Scrum - a framework that organizes the work into fixed-length sprints (usually 2-4 weeks) and delivers potentially shippable increments of the software product at the end of each sprint1

Extreme Programming (XP) - a methodology that focuses on delivering high-quality software products through practices such as test-driven development, pair programming, continuous integration, and frequent releases2

Rapid Application Development (RAD) - a methodology that emphasizes rapid prototyping and user involvement throughout the software development process3

The other options are not likely to be project deliverables of an agile software development methodology.

Strictly managed software requirements baselines are not likely to be project deliverables of an agile software development methodology. A software requirements baseline is a set of agreed-upon and approved software requirements that serve as the basis for the software design, development, testing, and delivery. A strictly managed software requirements baseline is a software requirements baseline that is controlled and changed only through a formalchange management process. Strictly managed software requirements baselines are more suitable for traditional or waterfall software development methodologies that follow a linear and sequential process of defining, designing, developing, testing, and delivering software products. Strictly managed software requirements baselines are not compatible with agile software development methodologies that embrace change and flexibility in the software requirements based on customer feedback and evolving needs.

Extensive project documentation is not likely to be project deliverables of an agile software development methodology. Project documentation is any written or electronic information that describes or records the activities, processes, results, or decisions of a project. Extensive project documentation is project documentation that covers every aspect of the project in detail and requires significant time and effort to produce and maintain. Extensive project documentation is more suitable for traditional or waterfall software development methodologies that rely on comprehensive documentation to communicate and document the project scope, requirements, design, testing, and delivery. Extensive project documentation is not compatible with agile software development methodologies that value working software over comprehensive documentation and use minimal documentation to support the communication and collaboration among the project team members.

Automated software programming routines are not likely to be project deliverables of an agile software development methodology. Automated software programming routines are programs or scripts that perform repetitive or complex tasks in the software development process without human intervention. Automated software programming routines can improve the efficiency, quality, and consistency of the software development process by reducing human errors, saving time, and enforcing standards. Automated software programming routines can be used in any software development methodology, but they are not specific to agile software development methodologies. Automated software programming routines are not considered as project deliverables because they are not part of the final product that is delivered to the customer.

The best recommendation for an IS auditor who finds that one employee has unauthorized access to confidential data is to require the business owner to conduct regular access reviews. Access reviews are periodic assessments of user access rights and permissions to ensure that they are appropriate, necessary, and aligned with the business needs and objectives. Access reviews help to identify and remediate any unauthorized, excessive, or obsolete access that could pose a security risk or violate compliance requirements. The business owner is responsible for defining and approving the access requirements for their data and ensuring that they are enforced and monitored. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

CISA Questions, Answers & Explanations Database

The most reliable follow-up procedure to determine if management has resolved the finding of non-sequential purchase order numbers is to inspect the system settings and transaction logs to determine if sequential order numbers are generated. This will provide direct evidence of the system’s functionality and compliance with the audit recommendation. The other options are less reliable because they rely on indirect evidence or information obtained from management, which may not be accurate or complete. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Standards, Guidelines, Tools and Techniques

 The most important thing for an IS auditor to determine during the detailed design phase of a system development project is that acceptance test criteria have been developed. Acceptance test criteria define the expected functionality, performance and quality of the system, and are used to verify that the system meets the user requirements and specifications. The IS auditor should ensure that the acceptance test criteria are clear, measurable and agreed upon by all stakeholders. Program coding standards have been followed is something that the IS auditor should check during the coding or testing phase, not the detailed design phase. Data conversion procedures have been established or the design has been approved by senior management are things that the IS auditor should verify during the implementation phase, not the detailed design phase. References: ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2018, page 323

A mobile device awareness program would best enable an organization to address the security risks associated with a recently implemented bring your own device (BYOD) strategy. A mobile device awareness program is a set of activities that aim to educate and inform the employees about the benefits, challenges, and best practices of using their personal mobile devices for work purposes. A mobile device awareness program can help the organization to:

Communicate the organization’s policies and expectations regarding BYOD, such as which devices are allowed, what data can be accessed or stored, and what security measures are required.

Raise the employees’ awareness of the potential threats and vulnerabilities that affect their mobile devices, such as malware, phishing, data leakage, or device loss.

Provide the employees with guidance and tips on how to protect their mobile devices and the organization’s data, such as using strong passwords, encryption, antivirus software, remote wipe, or VPN.

Encourage the employees to report any incidents or issues related to their mobile devices, such as suspicious messages, unauthorized access, or device damage.

A mobile device awareness program can help the organization to reduce the security risks associated with BYOD by enhancing the employees’ knowledge, skills, and behavior in using their mobile devices securely and responsibly. Amobile device awareness program can also help the organization to comply with relevant regulations and standards that governdata privacy and security in the cloud1.

The other options are not as effective as a mobile device awareness program in enabling an organization to address the security risks associated with BYOD. Option A, mobile device tracking program, is a tool that allows the organization to monitor and locate the employees’ mobile devices in case of loss or theft. However, this tool may not prevent or detect other types of security risks, such as malware infection or data breach. Option B, mobile device upgrade program, is a process that ensures that the employees’ mobile devices are running the latest versions of operating systems and applications. However, this process may not address other aspects of security, such as user behavior or data protection. Option C, mobile device testing program, is a method that verifies the functionality and compatibility of the employees’ mobile devices with the organization’s systems and networks. However, this method may not cover all the scenarios or factors that may affect the security of the mobile devices or the organization’s data2.

 The most significant risk in virtualizing the server environment without making any other changes to the network or security infrastructure is the inability of the network intrusion detection system (IDS) to monitor virtual server-to-server communications. This can create blind spots for the IDS and allow malicious traffic to bypass detection. A vulnerability in the virtualization platform affecting multiple hosts is a potential risk, but not necessarily more significant than the loss of visibility. Data center environmental controls not aligning with new configuration or system documentation not being updated to reflect changes in the environment are operational issues, not security issues. References: ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2018, page 373

 A network vulnerability assessment is a process of identifying and evaluating the weaknesses and exposures in a network that could be exploited by attackers to compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the network or its resources. A network vulnerability assessment typically involves scanning the network devices, such as routers, switches, firewalls, servers, and workstations, using automated tools that compare the device configurations, software versions, and patch levels against a database of known vulnerabilities. A network vulnerability assessment can also include manual testing and verification of the network architecture, design, policies, and procedures. One of the main objectives of a network vulnerability assessment is to detect and report any misconfiguration and missing updates in the network devices that could pose a security risk1. Misconfiguration refers to any deviation from the recommended or best practice settings for the network devices, such as weak passwords, open ports, unnecessary services, default accounts, or incorrect permissions. Missing updates refer toany outdated or unsupported software or firmware that has not been patched with the latest security fixes or enhancements from the vendors2. Misconfiguration and missing updates are common sources of network vulnerabilities that can be exploited by attackers to gain unauthorized access, executemalicious code, causedenial of service, or escalate privileges on the network devices3. Therefore, an IS auditor should expect to see misconfiguration and missing updates in a network vulnerability assessment. The other options are less relevant or incorrect because:

B. Malicious software and spyware are not usually detected by a network vulnerability assessment, as they are more related to the content and behavior of the network traffic rather than the configuration and patch level of the network devices. Malicious software and spyware are programs that infect or monitor the network devices or their users for malicious purposes, such as stealing data, displaying ads, or performing remote commands. Malicious software and spyware can be detected by other security tools, such as antivirus software, firewalls, or intrusion detection systems4.

C. Zero-day vulnerabilities are not usually detected by a network vulnerability assessment, as they are unknown or undisclosed vulnerabilities that have not been reported or patched by the vendors or the security community. Zero-day vulnerabilities are rare and difficult to discover, as they require advanced techniques and skills to exploit them. Zero-day vulnerabilities can be detected by other security tools, such as intrusion prevention systems, anomaly detection systems, or artificial intelligence systems5.

D. Security design flaws are not usually detected by a network vulnerability assessment, as they are more related to the logic and functionality of the network rather than the configuration and patch level of the network devices. Security design flaws are errors or weaknesses in the network architecture, design, policies, or procedures that could compromise the security objectives of the network. Securitydesign flaws can be detected by other security methods, such as security reviews, audits, or assessments6. References: Network VulnerabilityAssessment - ISACA, Network Vulnerability Scanning - NIST, Network Vulnerabilities - SANS, Malware - ISACA, Zero-Day Attacks - ISACA, Security Design Principles - NIST

The greatest concern for an IS auditor reviewing contracts for licensed software that executes a critical business process is that software escrow was not negotiated. Software escrow is an arrangement where a third-party holds a copy of the source code and documentation of a licensed software in a secure location. The software escrow agreement specifies the conditions under which the licensee can access the escrowed materials, such as in case of bankruptcy, termination, or breach of contract by the licensor. Software escrow is important for ensuring the continuity and availability of a critical business process that depends on a licensed software. Without software escrow, the licensee may face significant risks and challenges in maintaining, modifying, or recovering the software in case of any disruption or dispute with the licensor. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

CISA Questions, Answers & Explanations Database

 The greatest challenge to the alignment of business and IT is the lack of chief information officer (CIO) involvement in board meetings. The CIO is the senior executive responsible for overseeing the IT strategy, governance, and operations of the organization, and ensuring that they support the business objectives and needs. The CIO should be involved in board meetings to communicate the value and contribution of IT to the organization, to align the IT vision and direction with the business strategy and priorities, and to advocate for the IT resources and investments required to achieve the desired outcomes. The lack of CIO involvement in board meetings can result in a disconnect between business and IT, a loss of trust and confidence in IT, and missed opportunities for innovation and value creation. The other options are not as challenging as the lack of CIO involvement in board meetings, because they either do not affect the strategic alignment of business and IT, or theycanbe addressed by other means such as collaboration, negotiation, or escalation. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1

The best recommendation for improving IT governance within the organization is to implement key performance indicators (KPIs). KPIs are measurable values that show how effectively the organization is achieving its key business objectives. KPIs can help the organization tomonitor and evaluate the performance, efficiency, and alignment of its IT processes and resources with its business goals and strategies1.

The other options are not as effective as implementing KPIs for improving IT governance. Option B, implementing annual third-party audits, is a good practice but may not be sufficient or timely to identify and address the issues or gaps in IT governance. Option C, benchmarking organizational performance against industry peers, is a useful technique but may not reflect the specific needs and expectations of the organization’s stakeholders. Option D, requiring executive management to draft IT strategy, is a necessary step but not enough to ensure that IT governance is implemented and monitored throughout the organization.

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 & Explanations Database

The most significant risk from not testing patches before putting them into production is the lack of system integrity. Patches are software updates that fix bugs, vulnerabilities or performance issues in an application system. However, patches may also introduce new errors, conflicts or compatibility issues that could affect thefunctionality, reliability or security of the system4. By not testing patches before putting them into production, the organization exposes itself to the risk of system failures, data corruption or unauthorized access. Loss of application support, outdated system documentation and developer access to production are also risks from not testing patches, but they are not as significant as the lack of system integrity. References:

CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 2951

CISA Review Questions, Answers &Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription

The best recommendation for an IS auditor when finding that a third-party IT service provider hosts the organization’s HR system in a foreign country is to conduct a privacy impact analysis. A privacy impact analysis is a systematic process that identifies and evaluates the potential risks and impacts of collecting, using, disclosing, and storing personal information. A privacy impact analysis will help the IS auditor to assess the legal, regulatory, contractual, and ethical obligations of the organization and the service provider regarding the protection of personal information. A privacy impact analysis will also help to identify and mitigate any privacy risks and gaps in the service level agreement. References:

CISA Certification | CertifiedInformation Systems Auditor | ISACA

CISA Questions, Answers & Explanations Database

The associated risk of mobile computing that an IS auditor should identify during the planning phase of a data loss prevention (DLP) audit is increased vulnerability due to anytime, anywhere accessibility. Mobile computing refers to the use of portable devices, such as laptops, tablets, smartphones, or wearable devices, that can access data and applications over wireless networks from any location6. Mobile computing enables greater flexibility, productivity, and convenience for users, but also poses significant security challenges for organizations. One of these challenges is increased vulnerability due to anytime, anywhere accessibility. This means that mobile devices are exposed to a higher risk of loss, theft, damage, or unauthorized access than stationary devices7. If mobile devices contain oraccess sensitive data withoutproper protection, such asencryption or authentication, they could result in data leakage or breach in case of compromise8. Therefore, an IS auditor should identify this risk as part of a DLP audit. The other options are less relevant or incorrect because:

A. The use of cloud negatively impacting IT availability is not an associated risk of mobile computing that an IS auditor should identify during the planning phase of a DLP audit, as it is more related to cloud computing than mobile computing. Cloud computing refers to the delivery of computing services, such as data storage or processing, over the Internet from remote servers. Cloud computing may enable or support mobile computing by providing access to data and applications from any device or location, but it does not necessarily imply mobile computing. The use of cloud may negatively impact IT availability if there are disruptions or outages in the cloud service provider’s network or infrastructure, but this is not a direct consequence of mobile computing.

B. Increased need for user awareness training is not an associated risk of mobile computing that an IS auditor should identify during the planning phase of a DLP audit, as it is more of a control or mitigation measure than a risk. User awareness training refers to educating users about security policies, procedures, and best practices for using mobile devices and protecting data. User awareness training may help to reduce the risk of data loss or breach due to mobile computing by increasing user knowledge and responsibility, but it does not eliminate or prevent the risk.

D. Lack of governance and oversight for IT infrastructure and applications is not an associated risk of mobile computing that an IS auditor should identify during the planning phase of a DLP audit, as it is more of a general or organizational risk than a specific or technical risk. Governance and oversight refer to the establishment and implementation of policies, standards, and procedures for managing IT resources and aligning them with business objectives. Lack of governance and oversight for IT infrastructure and applications may affect the security and performance of mobile devices and data, but it is not a direct or inherent result of mobile computing. References: Mobile Computing - ISACA, Mobile Computing Device Threats, Vulnerabilities and Risk Factors Are Ubiquitous - ISACA, Data Loss Prevention—Next Steps -ISACA, [Cloud Computing - ISACA], [Cloud Computing Risk Assessment - ISACA], [User Awareness Training - ISACA], [Governance and Oversight - ISACA]

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.

Network segmentation is the best security measure to reduce the risk of propagation when a cyberattack occurs, because it divides the network into smaller subnetworks that are isolated from each other and have different access controls and security policies. This limits the spread of malicious traffic and prevents attackers from accessing sensitive data or systems in other segments. Aperimeter firewall, a data loss prevention (DLP) system, and a web application firewall are also useful security measures, but they do not prevent propagation within the network as effectively as network segmentation does. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3

The best description of an audit risk is that the financial report may contain undetected material errors. Audit risk is the risk that the auditor expresses an inappropriate opinion on the financial report when it contains material misstatements or errors. Audit risk consists of three components: inherentrisk, control risk, and detection risk. Inherent risk is the susceptibility of an assertion or a control to a material misstatement or error due to factors such as complexity, volatility, fraud, or human error. Control risk is the risk that a material misstatement or error will not be prevented or detected by the internal controls. Detection risk is the risk that the auditor’s procedures will not detect a material misstatement or error that exists in an assertion or a control. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

CISA Questions, Answers & Explanations Database