Isaca CISA - Certified Information Systems Auditor

The best recommendation to help prevent the situation where IT support staff were put in a position to make decisions beyond their level of authority during the review of a system disruption incident is to introduce escalation protocols. Escalation protocols are policies and procedures that define who should be notified, involved, or consulted when an incident occurs, how the communication and handover should take place, and what criteria or triggers should be used to escalate the incident to a higher level of authority or expertise2. Escalation protocols help to ensure that:

Incidents are handled by the appropriate staff with the required skills, knowledge, and experience

Incidents are resolved in a timely and effective manner

Incidents are escalated to senior management or specialized teams when necessary

Incidents are documented and reported accurately and transparently

Incidents are analyzed and learned from to prevent recurrence or mitigate impact

Therefore, by introducing escalation protocols, an organization can improve its incident management process and avoid putting IT support staff in a position to make decisions beyond their level of authority.

 A contingency facility is a backup site that can be used to resume business operations in the event of a disaster or disruption at the primary site. The most important consideration for a contingency facility is that it is located a sufficient distance away from the primary site, so that it is not affected by the same event that caused the disruption. For example, if the primary site is damaged by a fire, flood, earthquake, or terrorist attack, the contingency facility should be in a different geographic area that is unlikely to experience the same hazard. This way, the organization can continue to provide its services and products to its customers and stakeholders without interruption.

The other options are not as important as the location of the contingency facility. The badge access controls, the number of business assets, and the identifiability of the sites are secondary factors that may affect the security and efficiency of the contingency facility, but they are not essential for its functionality. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

 An organization considering the outsourcing of a business application should first conduct a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the feasibility, viability and desirability of the outsourcing decision. A cost-benefit analysis should compare the costs and benefits of outsourcing versus keeping the application in-house, taking into account factors such as financial, operational, strategic, legal, regulatory, security and quality aspects. A cost-benefit analysis should also identify the risks and opportunities associated with outsourcing, and provide a basis for defining the service level requirements, performing a vulnerability assessment, and issuing a request for proposal (RFP) in the subsequent stages of the outsourcing process. References: Info Technology &Systems Resources | COBIT, Risk, Governance … - ISACA, CISACertification | Certified Information Systems Auditor | ISACA

A virtual tape library (VTL) is a disk-based backup system that emulates a tape library. It provides faster backup and recovery than traditional tape systems, and it can be integrated with data deduplication and replication technologies to enhance disaster recovery. A VTL can also be replicated to an offsite location for additional protection. A VTL is the best disaster recovery solution for an environment where data virtualization is used, because it can handle large volumes of data, support multiple backup applications, and provide consistent performance.

Onsite disk-based backup systems (A) are not the best disaster recovery solution, because they are vulnerable to the same risks as the primary data center, such as fire, flood, power outage, or sabotage. Tape-based backup systems (B) are not the best disaster recovery solution, because they are slow, prone to errors, and require manual intervention. Redundant array of independent disks (RAID) (D) is not a backup system, but a storage technology that improves performance and fault tolerance by distributing data across multiple disks. RAID does not protect against data corruption, human error, or malicious attacks.

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

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

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.

To detect unauthorized disclosure of confidential documents sent over corporate email, monitoring all emails based on pre-defined criteria is the best approach. This involves setting up automated monitoring systems that analyze email content, attachments, and metadata to identify any potential unauthorized disclosures. By defining specific criteria (such as keywords related to confidential information), organizations can proactively detect and prevent leaks. Requiring encryption before sending documents (option A) is important but does not address monitoring for unauthorized disclosures. Firewalls (option B) protect the network but do not specifically focus on email content. Reporting outgoing emails marked as confidential (option C) relies onuser self-reporting and may not catch all incidents12. References: 1(https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/past-issues/2010/data-governance-for-privacy-confidentiality-and-compliance-a-holistic-approach) 2(https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/newsletters/atisaca/2020/volume-6/best-practices-for-privacy-audits)

 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.

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]

The greatest concern when reviewing an IT strategic plan is B. The plan does not support relevant organizational goals. This is because an IT strategic plan should align and integrate the IT goals and objectives with the organization’s overall strategy and vision, and ensure that IT supports and enables the business processes and functions1. If the IT strategic plan does not support relevant organizational goals, it may lead to:

Suboptimal or negative outcomes and value for the organization, as IT investments and initiatives may not align with the organization’s priorities, needs, or expectations1.

Conflicts or inconsistencies between IT and business functions, as IT may not deliver the expected level of service, quality, or performance2.

Wasted or inefficient use of resources, as IT may spend time, money, or effort on projects or activities that are not relevant or beneficial for the organization2.

The auditor’s best course of action is to document the finding and explain the risk of having administrator accounts with inappropriate security settings. This is because the auditor’s role is to identify and report the issues, not to fix them or request others to fix them. The auditor should also communicate the impact of the finding, such as the possibility of unauthorized access, data tampering, or denial of service attacks. The auditor should not assume the responsibility of the IT manager or the DBA, who are in charge of changing the security parameters or disabling the accounts. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.2.21

CISA Online Review Course, Domain 1, Module 3, Lesson 32

Regression testing is the most appropriate testing method for assessing whether system integrity has been maintained after changes have been made. Regression testing is a type of software testing that ensures that previously developed and tested software still performs as expected after a change1 Regression testing helps to detectany defects or errors that may have been introduced or uncovered due to the change2 Regression testing can be performed at different levels of testing, such as unit, integration, system, and acceptance3

Unit testing is a type of software testing that verifies the functionality of individual components or units of code. Unit testing is usually performed by developers before integrating the code with other components. Unit testing helps to identify and fix errors at an early stage of development, but it does not ensure that the system as a whole works as expected after a change.

Integration testing is a type of software testing that verifies the functionality, performance, and reliability of the interactions between different components or units of code. Integration testing is usually performed after unit testing and before system testing. Integration testing helps to identify and fix errors that may occur when different components are integrated, but it does not ensure that the system as a whole works as expected after a change.

Acceptance testing is a type of software testing that verifies whether the system meets the user requirements and expectations. Acceptance testing is usually performed by end-users or customersafter system testing and before deploying the system to production. Acceptance testing helps to ensure that the system delivers the desired value and quality to the users, but it does not ensure that the system as a whole works as expected after a change.

The primary reason for an IS audit manager to review the work performed by a senior IS auditor prior to presentation of a report is to ensure the conclusions are adequately supported. The IS audit manager is responsible for overseeing and supervising the audit process, ensuring the quality and consistency of the audit work, and approving the audit report and recommendations. The IS audit manager should review the work performed by the senior IS auditor to verify that the audit objectives, scope, and criteria have been met, that the audit evidence is sufficient, reliable, and relevant, and that the audit conclusions are logical, objective, and based on the audit evidence. The IS audit manager should also ensure that the audit report is clear, concise, accurate, and complete, and that it communicates the audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations effectively to the intended audience. The other options are not the primary reason for an IS audit manager to reviewthe work performed by a seniorIS auditor prior to presentation of a report, because they either relate to specific aspects or stages of the audit work rather than the overall outcome, or they are part of the senior IS auditor’s responsibility rather thanthe IS audit manager’s. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.5

Full disk encryption (FDE) is a means of protecting information by encrypting all of thedata on a disk, including temporary files, programs, and system files1. FDE is best suited for addressing the risk scenario of physical theft of media on which information is stored, as it prevents unauthorized access to the data even if the device is lost or stolen2. FDE does not prevent data leakage as a result of employees leaving to work for competitors, as they may still have access to the data while using the device or copy the data to another device before leaving. FDE does not prevent noncompliance fines related to storage of regulated information, as it does not ensure that the data is stored in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. FDE does not prevent unauthorized logical access to information through an application interface, as it does not control the access rights and permissions of users and applications. *References: According to the ISACA IT Audit and Assurance Standards, Guidelines and Tools and Techniques for IS Audit and Assurance Professionals, section 2402 Planning, “The IS audit and assurance professional should identify and assess risk relevant to the area under review.” 3 Oneof the risk factors to consider is “the sensitivity of information processed, stored or transmitted by the system” 3. FDE is one of the possible controls to mitigate the risk of unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information due to physical theft of media.

 A feasibility study is an assessment that determines the likelihood of a proposed project being successful, such as a new system development1. A feasibility study typically covers various aspects of the project, such as technical, economic, operational and legal feasibility2. The IS auditor’s role is to audit the feasibility study and ensure that it is objective, realistic and reliable3.

One of the most important aspects of a feasibility study is the economic feasibility, which analyzes the costs and benefits of the proposed system and compares them with alternative solutions2. Theeconomic feasibility study should include a detailed breakdown of the development, implementation and operational costs, as well as the expected revenues, savings and intangible benefits of the system3. The IS auditor should review the cost-benefit documentation for reasonableness and accuracy, and verify that the assumptions and calculations are valid and supported by evidence3.

The other options are not directly related to auditing the feasibility study of a system development project. Reviewing qualifications of key members of the project team (option A) is more relevant to auditing the project management and human resources aspects of the project. Reviewing the request for proposal (RFP) to ensure that it covers the scope of work (option B) is more relevant to auditing the procurement and vendor selection process of the project. Ensuring that vendor contracts are reviewed by legal counsel (option D) is more relevant to auditing the legal and contractual aspects of the project.

Stratified mean per unit sampling is a method of audit sampling that divides the population into subgroups (strata) based on some characteristic, such as monetary value, and then selects a sample from each stratum using mean per unit sampling. Mean per unit sampling is a method of audit sampling that estimates the total value of a population by multiplying the average value of the sample items by the number of items in the population. Stratified mean per unit sampling is suitable for populations that have a high variability or a skewed distribution, such as the bank accounts in this question. By stratifying the population, the auditor can reduce the sampling error and increase the precision of the estimate.

Difference estimation sampling (option A) is not the best sampling approach for these accounts. Difference estimation sampling is a method of audit sampling that estimates the total error or misstatement in a population by multiplying the average difference between the book value and the audited value of the sample items by the number of items in the population. Difference estimation sampling is suitable for populations that have a low variability and a symmetrical distribution, which is not the case for the bank accounts in this question.

Customer unit sampling (option C) is not a sampling approach, but a type of monetary unit sampling. Monetary unit sampling is a method of audit sampling that selects sample items based on their monetary value, rather than their physical units. Customer unit sampling is a variation of monetary unit sampling that treats each customer account as a single unit, regardless of how many transactions or balances it contains. Customer unit sampling may be appropriate for testing existence or occurrence assertions, but not for estimating total values.

Unstratified mean per unit sampling (option D) is not the best sampling approach for these accounts. Unstratified mean per unit sampling is a method of audit sampling that applies mean per unit sampling to the entire population without dividing it into subgroups. Unstratified mean per unit sampling may result in a larger sample size and a lower precision than stratified mean per unit sampling, especially for populations that have a high variability or a skewed distribution, such as the bank accounts in this question.

Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

The greatest advantage of vulnerability scanning over penetration testing is that the testing process can be automated to cover large groups of assets. Vulnerability scanning is an automated, high-level security test that reports its findings of known vulnerabilities in systems, networks, applications, and devices. Vulnerability scanning can be performed frequently, quickly, and efficiently to scan a large number of assets and identify potential weaknesses that need to be addressed. Vulnerability scanning can also help organizations comply with security standards and regulations, such as PCI DSS1.

The other options are not as advantageous as option D, as they may not reflect the true benefits or limitations of vulnerability scanning compared to penetration testing. The testing produces a lower number of false positive results, but this is not necessarily true, as vulnerability scanning may report vulnerabilities that are not exploitable or relevant in the context of the organization. Network bandwidth is utilized more efficiently, but this may not be a significant advantage, as vulnerability scanning may still consume considerable network resources depending on the scope and frequency of the scans. Custom-developed applications can be tested more accurately, but this is also not true, as vulnerability scanning may not be able to detect complex or unknown vulnerabilities that require manual analysis or exploitation.

 A web proxy server for corporate connections to external resources reduces organizational risk by anonymizing users through changed IP addresses. A web proxy server is an intermediarybetween the web and client devices, that can provide proxy services to a client or a group of clients1. One of the main benefits of using a web proxy server is that it allows users to change their IP address andlocation, circumventing geoblocking and hiding their identity from the target website2.

Anonymizing internal IP addresses is important for online security, as it helps protect the organization from several threats. If an attacker controls a server that employees connect to, the outgoing IP address of the organization’s router is logged on the server. This IP address can be used by the attacker to launch a denial-of-service (DoS) attack or to create more targeted attacks such as phishing2. With a web proxy server, the IP shown in web logs is the web proxy’s, which means an attacker would not have access to theorganization’s router outgoing IP address2.

Anonymizing outgoing IP addresses is also important when carrying out sensitive actions online, such as law enforcement investigations or competitive intelligence. A web proxy server can help users avoid exposing their internal IP address that leads back to their organization, and instead use a third-party web proxy that provides more anonymity2.

The other options are not directly related to reducing organizational risk by using a web proxy server. Providing multi-factor authentication for additional security (option B) is a benefit of some web proxy servers, but it is not the main purpose of using a web proxy server3. Providing faster response than direct access(option C) is a benefit of some web proxy servers that cache content forbetter data transfer speeds and less bandwidth usage, but it is not directly related to reducing organizational risk1. Load balancing traffic to optimize data pathways (option D) is a benefit of some web proxy servers that distribute traffic across multiple servers, but it is not directly related to reducing organizational risk4.

 When auditing the closing stages of a system development project, the most important consideration should be the user acceptance test (UAT) results. The UAT is a critical phase of the system development life cycle (SDLC) that ensures that the system meets the functional requirements and expectations of the end users. The UAT results provide evidence of the system’s quality, performance, usability, and reliability. Control requirements, rollback procedures, and functional requirements documentation are also important considerations, but they are not ascrucial as the UAT results in determining if the system is ready for deployment. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, page 325.

The type of IS audit that would provide the greatest level of assurance that the department’s objectives have been met after implementing new technologies and processes is an integrated audit. An integrated audit is an audit that combines financial, operational, compliance, and IT auditing aspects to provide a holistic view of the organization’s performance and risks. An integrated audit can evaluate whether the new technologies and processes are aligned with the organization’s goals, strategies, policies, and controls, and whether they are delivering value, efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability. The other types of IS audits (A, C and D) would not provide the same level of assurance, as they would only focus on specific aspects of the organization’s activities, such as performance, cyber security, or financial reporting, which may not capture the full impact of the new technologies and processes. References: CISA Certification | Certified Information Systems Auditor | ISACA, CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: The Process of Auditing Information Systems, Section 1.2: Types of IS Audit Engagements

The primary responsibility of a project steering committee is to provide regular project updates and oversight. A project steering committee is an advisory group that consists of senior stakeholders and experts who offer guidance and support to a project manager and their team. The steering committee is mainly concerned with the direction, scope, budget, timeline, and methods used to realize a given project1.

One of the key roles of a steering committee is to monitor the progress and performance of the project and ensure that it aligns with the business objectives and stakeholder expectations. The steering committee also provides feedback, advice, and recommendations to the project manager and helps them resolve any issues or challenges that may arise during the project lifecycle. The steering committee communicates regularly with the project manager and other stakeholders through meetings, reports, and presentations23.

Therefore, providing regular project updates and oversight is the primary responsibility of a project steering committee.

 The best option for ensuring confidentiality through the use of asymmetric encryption is to encrypt a message with the recipient’s public key (option A). This is because:

Asymmetric encryption, also known as public-key cryptography, is a type of encryption that uses a pair of keys to encrypt and decrypt data. The pair of keys includes a public key, which can be shared with anyone, and a private key, which is kept secret by the owner12.

In asymmetric encryption, the sender uses the recipient’s public key to encrypt the data. The recipient then uses their private key to decrypt the data. This approach allows for secure communication between two parties without the need for both parties to have the same secret key12.

Encrypting a message with the recipient’s public key ensures that only the recipient can decrypt it with their private key. This provides confidentiality, which means that the message is protected from unauthorized access or disclosure12.

Encrypting a message with the sender’s private key (option B) does not ensure confidentiality, but rather authentication, which means that the message can be verified as coming from the sender. This is because anyone can decrypt the message with the sender’s public key, but only the sender can encrypt it with their private key12.

Encrypting a message with the sender’s public key (option C) or the recipient’s private key (option D) does not make sense, as it would render the message unreadable by both parties. This is because neither party has the corresponding key to decrypt it12.

Therefore, the best option for ensuring confidentiality through the use of asymmetric encryption is to encrypt a message with the recipient’s public key (option A), as this ensures that only the recipient can decrypt it with their private key.

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

 The primary factor to determine system criticality is the maximum allowable downtime (MAD), which is the maximum period of time that a system can be unavailable before causing significant damage or risk to the organization. TheMAD reflects the business impact and the recovery requirements of the system, and it can be used to prioritize the systems and allocate the resources for disaster recovery planning. The other options are not as important as the MAD, and they may vary depending on the system characteristics and the recovery strategy. The recovery point objective (RPO) is the maximum amount of data loss that is acceptable for a system. The mean time to restore (MTTR) is the average time required to restore a system after a failure. The key performance indicators (KPIs) are metrics that measure the performance and effectiveness of a system. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) 1, page 468-469.

QUESTIO NO. 704

Which of the following would provide the BEST evidence that a cloud provider's change management process is effective?

A. Minutes from regular change management meetings with the vendor

B. Written assurances from the vendor's CEO and CIO

C. The results of a third-party review provided by the vendor

D. A copy of change management policies provided by the vendor

Answer: C

The results of a third-party review provided by the vendor would provide the best evidence that a cloud provider’s change management process is effective, because it would be an independent and objective assessment of the vendor’s compliance with best practices and standards for managing changes in the cloud environment. A third-party review would also include testing of the vendor’s change management controls and procedures, and provide recommendations for improvement if needed.

Minutes from regular change management meetings with the vendor would not provide sufficient evidence, because they would only reflect the vendor’s self-reported information and may not capture all the changes that occurred or their impact on the cloud services. Written assurances from the vendor’s CEO and CIO would also not provide sufficient evidence, because they would be based on the vendor’s own opinion and may not be verified by external sources. A copy of change management policies provided by the vendor would not provide sufficient evidence, because it would only show the vendor’s intended approach to change management, but not how it is implemented or monitored in practice.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

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

The percent of issues resolved by the first contact, also known as the first contact resolution (FCR) rate, is a metric that measures the effectiveness and efficiency of the IT help desk services. It indicates how many customer support issues are resolved on the first interaction with the IT help desk, without requiring any follow-up calls, emails, chats, or escalations. The FCR rate is calculated by dividing the number of issues resolved on the first contact by the total number of customer support issues, and multiplying by 100%1.

The FCR rate is the best indicator of service quality among the four monthly performance metrics, because it reflects the following aspects of the IT help desk services:

Customer satisfaction: Customers are more likely to be satisfied with the IT help desk services if their issues are resolved quickly and effectively on the first contact, without having to wait for a response or repeat their problem to multiple agents. A high FCR rate can improve customer loyalty, retention, and advocacy2.

Cost efficiency: Resolving issues on the first contact can reduce the operational costs of the IT help desk services, such as labor costs, phone costs, or overhead costs. A high FCR rate can also increase the productivity and utilization of the IT help desk agents, as they can handle more issues in less time3.

Service level: Resolving issues on the first contact can improve the service level of the IT help desk services, such as reducing the average handle time (AHT), increasing the service level agreement (SLA) compliance, or decreasing the backlog of unresolved issues. A high FCR rate can also enhance the reputation and credibility of the IT help desk services4.

Therefore, an IS auditor should review the FCR rate as a key performance indicator (KPI) of the IT help desk services, and compare it with the industry standards and benchmarks. According to MetricNet’s benchmarking database, the FCR industry standard is 74 percent. This number varies widely, however, froma low of about 41 percent to a high of 94 percent5. An IS auditor should also recommend ways to improve the FCR rate, such as:

Training and empowering the IT help desk agents to handle a wide range of issues and provide accurate and consistent solutions

Implementing a knowledge base or a self-service portal that provides relevant and updated information and guidance for common or simple issues

Improving communication and collaboration between different departments or teams that may be involved in resolving complex or escalated issues

Using feedback and analytics tools to monitor and measure customer satisfaction and identify areas for improvement

The primary reason for an organization to classify the data stored on its internal networks is to implement data protection requirements1234. Data classification helps organizations understand what data they have, its characteristics, and what security and privacy requirements it needs to meet so that the necessary protections can be achieved3. While determining data retention policy56, complying with the organization’s data policies27, and following industry best practices891011 are important aspects of data classification, they are secondary to the fundamental requirement of implementing data protection requirements.

Outsourcing the development of an e-banking solution when in-house technical expertise is not available can significantly reduce start-up costs. This is because the organization can avoid the expenses associated with hiring and training a full-time development team, purchasing necessary hardware and software, and maintaining the system1. While outsourcing can also potentially reduce the risk of system downtime, increase the ability to adapt the system, and provide direct oversight of risks, these benefits are not as immediate or guaranteed as the cost savings123.

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. 

The organization’s software inventory is not complete. This finding would be of greatest concern to an IS auditor assessing an organization’s patch management process because:

A software inventory is a list of all the software assets that an organization owns, uses, or manages. A software inventory is essential for effective patch management, as it helps identify the software that needs to be updated, the patches that are available, and the dependencies and compatibility issues that may arise. Without a complete software inventory, an organization may miss some critical patches, expose itself to security risks, and waste resources on unnecessary or redundant patches.

Applications frequently need to be rebooted for patches to take effect. This finding would be of moderate concern to an IS auditor assessing an organization’s patch management process because:

Rebooting applications for patches to take effect is a common and expected practice in some cases, especially for operating system or kernel patches. However, frequent reboots may indicate that the organization is not applying patches in a timely or efficient manner, or that the patches are not well-designed or tested. Frequent reboots may also cause disruption to the business operations and user experience, and increase the risk of data loss or corruption.

Software vendors are bundling patches. This finding would be of low concern to an IS auditor assessing an organization’s patch management process because:

Bundling patches is a practice where software vendors combine multiple patches into a single package or update. Bundling patches can have some advantages, such as reducing the number of downloads and installations, simplifying the patch management process, and ensuring consistency and compatibility among patches. However, bundling patches can also have some disadvantages, such as increasing the size and complexity of the updates, delaying the delivery of critical patches, and introducing new bugs or vulnerabilities.

Testing patches takes significant time. This finding would be of low concern to an IS auditor assessing an organization’s patch management process because:

Testing patches is a vital step in the patch management process, as it helps ensure that the patches are functional, secure, and compatible with the existing software and hardware environment. Testing patches can take significant time, depending on the scope, complexity, and frequency of the patches. However, testing patches is a necessary investment to avoid potential problems or failures that could result from applying untested or faulty patches.

 The rules of engagement define the scope, objectives, methodology, deliverables, and limitations of the penetration testing. They also specify the legal and ethical boundaries, communication channels, and escalation procedures. Establishing the rules of engagement is the first step when planning to conduct penetration testing for a client, as it ensures that both parties agree on the expectations and outcomes of the testing. The other options are important steps, but they should be done after the rules of engagement are established. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) 1, page 381.

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.

The primary reason for an IS auditor to perform a risk assessment is to help identify areas with a relatively high probability of material problems. A risk assessment is a systematic process of evaluating the potential risks that may be involved in an activity or undertaking. It involves identifying the sources of risk, analyzing the likelihood and impact of the risk, and prioritizing the risks based on their significance. A risk assessment helps the IS auditor to focus on the areas that are most vulnerable to errors, fraud, or inefficiencies, and to design appropriate audit procedures to address those risks. A risk assessment also helps the IS auditor to allocate audit resources efficiently and effectively.

A risk assessment does not provide a basis for the formulation of corrective action plans, as this is a responsibility of management, not the IS auditor. A risk assessment does not increase awareness of the types of management actions that may be inappropriate, as this is a matter of professional ethicsand judgment. A risk assessment does not help to identify areas that are most sensitive to fraudulent or inaccurate practices, as this is a result of the risk assessment, not its purpose.

 Secure code reviews as part of a continuous deployment program are preventive controls. Preventive controls are controls that aim to prevent or avoid undesirable events or outcomes from occurring, such as errors, defects, or incidents. Secure code reviews are activities that examine and evaluate the source code of a software or application to identify and eliminate any vulnerabilities, flaws, or weaknesses that may compromise its security, functionality, or performance. Secure code reviews as part of a continuous deployment program can help prevent or avoid security issues or incidents from occurring by ensuring that the code is secure and compliant before it is deployed to production. The other options are not correct types of controls for secure code reviews as part of a continuous deployment program, as they have different meanings and functions. Detective controls are controls that aim to detect or discover undesirable events or outcomes that have occurred, such as errors, defects, or incidents. Logical controls are controls that use software or hardware mechanisms to regulate or restrict access to IT resources, such as data, systems, or networks. Corrective controls are controls that aim to correct or rectify undesirable events or outcomes that have occurred, such as errors, defects, or incidents. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

Application level firewalls are the best control to prevent the transfer of files to external parties through instant messaging (IM) applications, because they can inspect and filter network traffic based on application-specific protocols and commands, such as IM file transfer commands. Application level firewalls can block or allow IM file transfers based on predefined rules or policies. File level encryption, file transfer protocol (FTP), and instant messaging policy are not effective controls to prevent IM file transfers, because they donot restrict or monitor IM network traffic. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.4.1

Reviewing the performance against service level agreements (SLAs) would best determine whether the service provider continues to meet the organization’s objectives, as SLAs define the expected level of service, quality, availability, and responsibilities of both parties. Assessment of the personnel training processes of the provider, adequacy of the service provider’s insurance, and periodic audits of controls by an independent auditor are important aspects of outsourcing, but they do not directly measure the performance of the service provider against the organization’s objectives. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.5.2

 A post-implementation review is a process of evaluating the outcome and benefits of a project or a system after it has been implemented. The main purpose of a post-implementation review is to determine to what extent the business requirements are being met by the new system. Therefore, the most likely aspect to be assessed is the results of line processing, which refers to the actual performance and functionality of the system in the operational environment.

 An organization’s audit charter primarily describes the auditors’ authority to conduct audits. The audit charter is a formal document that defines the purpose, scope, responsibilities, and reporting relationships of the internal audit function. It also establishes the auditors’ right of access to information, records, personnel, and physical properties relevant to their work. The audit charter provides the basis for the auditors’ independence and accountability to the governing body and senior management. 

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

Ransomwareis a type of malicious software that encrypts the victim’s data and demands a ransom for its decryption1. Ransomware attacks can cause significant damage to an organization’s operations, reputation, andfinances1. Therefore, it is important to mitigate the impact of ransomware attacks by implementing effective prevention and recovery strategies.

One of the best ways to mitigate the impact of ransomware attacks is to back up data frequently12345. Data backups are copies of the organization’s data that are stored in a separate location or medium, such as an external harddrive, cloud storage, or tape2. Data backupscan help the organization restore its data in case of a ransomware attack, without paying the ransom or losing valuable information2. Data backups shouldbe performed regularly, preferably daily or weekly, depending on the criticality and volume of the data2. Data backups should also be tested periodically to ensure their integrity and usability2.

The other options are not as effective as backing up data frequently in mitigating the impact of ransomware attacks. Invoking the disaster recovery plan (DRP) is a reactive measure that can help the organization resume its operations after a ransomware attack, but it does not prevent or reduce the damage caused by the attack3. Paying the ransom is not a recommended option, as it does not guarantee the decryption of the data or the deletion of the stolen data by the attackers. Paying the ransom also encourages further attacks and funds criminal activities14. Requiring password changes for administrative accounts is a good security practice, but it is not sufficient to prevent or recover from ransomware attacks. Ransomware attacks can exploit other vulnerabilities, such as phishing emails, outdated software, or weak network security15.

 The IS auditor’s next course of action after finding that firewalls are outdated and not supported by vendors should be to determine the risk of not replacing the firewall. Outdated firewalls may have known vulnerabilities that can be exploited by attackers to bypass security controls and access the network. They may also lack compatibility with newer technologies or standards that are required for optimal network performance and protection. Not replacing the firewall could expose the organization to various threats, such as data breaches, denial-of-service attacks, malware infections, or regulatory non-compliance. The IS auditor should assess the likelihood and impact of these threats and quantify the risk level for management to make informed decisions.

The most effective control for protecting the confidentiality and integrity of data stored unencrypted on virtual machines is to monitor access to stored images and snapshots of virtual machines. Images and snapshots are copies of virtual machines that can be used for backup, restoration, or cloning purposes. If data stored on virtual machines are unencrypted, they may be exposed or compromised if unauthorized or malicious users access or copy the images or snapshots. Therefore, monitoring access to stored images and snapshots can help detect and prevent any unauthorized or suspicious activities, and provide audit trails for accountability and investigation.

Restricting access to images and snapshots of virtual machines, limiting creation of virtual machine images and snapshots, and reviewing logical access controls on virtual machines regularly are not the most effective controls for protecting the confidentiality and integrity of data stored unencrypted on virtual machines. These controls may help reduce the risk or impact of data exposure or compromise, but they do not provide sufficient visibility or assurance of data protection. Restricting access to images and snapshots may not prevent authorized users from abusing their privileges or credentials. Limiting creation of virtual machine images and snapshots may not address the existing copies that may contain sensitive data. Reviewing logical access controls on virtual machines regularly may not reflect the actual access activities on images and snapshots.

The IS auditor’s first course of action should be to verify the results of the critical automatic calculations made by the system to determine the validity of user concerns. This is because the IS auditor needs to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit findings and conclusions. By verifying the results, the IS auditor can assess whether there are any errors or discrepancies in the system’s calculations that could affect the accuracy and reliability of the financial data. The IS auditor can use various techniques to verify the results, such as re-performing the calculations, comparing them with expected values, or tracing them to source documents. 

 The IS auditor’s independence would be most likely impaired if they implemented a specific control during the development of an application system. This is because the IS auditor would be auditing their own work, which creates a self-review threat that could compromise their objectivity and impartiality. The IS auditor should avoid participating in any operational or management activities that could affect their ability to perform an unbiased audit. The other options do not pose a significant threat to the IS auditor’s independence, as long as they follow the ethical standards and guidelines of the profession.

 An external assessment of network vulnerability is a process of identifying and evaluating the weaknesses and risks that affect the security and availability of a network froman outsider’s perspective. The most important factor to verify during this process is the completeness of network asset inventory, which is a list of all the devices, systems, and software that are connected to or part of the network. A complete and accurate network asset inventory can help identify the scope and boundaries of the network, the potential attack vectors and entry points, the critical assets and dependencies, and the existing security controls and gaps. Without a complete network asset inventory, an external assessment of network vulnerability may miss some important assets or vulnerabilities, leading to inaccurate or incomplete results and recommendations.

 Coding standards provide field naming conventions, which are rules for naming variables, constants, functions, classes, and other elements in a program. Coding standards help to ensure consistency, readability, maintainability, and portability of code. Program documentation, access control tables, and data flow diagrams are not part of coding standards. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1

Referential integrity is a property of data that ensures that all references between tables are valid and consistent. Disabling referential integrity controls can result in orphaned records, data anomalies, and inaccurate queries. The most effective way to compensate for the lack of referential integrity is to perform periodic table link checks, which verify that all foreign keys match existing primary keys in the related tables. More frequent data backups, concurrent access controls, and performance monitoring tools do not address the issue of data consistency and accuracy. References: ISACACISA Review Manual 27th Edition, page 291

Requirements analysis should be the best thing to compare against the business case when determining whether a project in the design phase will meet organizational objectives, because it defines the functional and non-functional specifications of the project deliverables that should satisfy the business needs and expectations. Requirements analysis can help evaluate whether the project design is aligned with the business case and whether it can achieve the desired outcomes and benefits. Implementation plan, project budget provisions, and project plan are also important aspects of a project in the design phase, but they are not as relevant asrequirements analysisfor comparing against the business case. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1