CISA Exam Dumps - Isaca Certification Questions and Answers

 Stress testing is a type of performance testing that evaluates the behavior and reliability of a system under extreme conditions, such as high workload, limited resources, or concurrent users. Stress testing should ideally be carried out under a test environment with production workloads, as this would simulate the most realistic and demanding scenario for the system without affecting the actual production environment. A production environment with production workloads is not suitable for stress testing, as it could cause disruption or damage to the system and its users. A production environment with test data is not suitable for stress testing, as it could compromise the integrity and security of the production data. A test environment with test data is not suitable for stress testing, as it could underestimate the potential issues and risks that could occur in the production environment. References:

CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, pages 471-4721

CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database,Question ID: 261

Asking management why the regulatory changes have not been included is the first thing that an IS auditor should do during the planning stage of a compliance audit. An IS auditor should inquire about the reasons for not updating the inventory of compliance requirements with recent regulatory changes related to managing data risk. This will help the IS auditor to understand whether there is a gap in awareness, communication, or implementation of compliance obligations within the organization. The other options are not the first things that an IS auditor should do, but rather possible subsequent actions that may depend on management’s response. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.31

CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database, Question ID 214

Forensic investigations require unaltered digital evidenceto be admissible in court.Write-protectionensures that the original data remains intact.

Option A (Correct):Write-protecting mediapreventsaccidental or malicious changesto evidence, ensuring its integrity.

Option B (Incorrect):Creating a digital imageis useful, but if the original evidence is modified, the integrity is lost.

Option C (Incorrect):Hash valueshelp detect changes but donot preventthem.

Option D (Incorrect):Chain of custodyensures accountability but doesnot physically protect the evidence.

 The most significant risk associated with a new health records system that replaces a legacy system is data not being converted correctly, resulting in inaccurate patient records. Data conversion is the process of transferring data from one format or system to another. Data conversion is a critical step in implementing a new health records system, as it ensures that the patient data are consistent, complete, accurate, and accessible in the new system. Data not being converted correctly may cause errors, discrepancies, or losses in patient records, which may have serious implications for patient safety, quality of care, legal compliance, and privacy protection. Staff not being involved in the procurement process, creating user resistance to the new system; the deployment project experiencing significant overruns, exceeding budget projections; and the new system having capacity issues, leading to slow response times for users are also risks associated with a new health records system implementation, but they are not as significant as data not being converted correctly. References: [ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition], page 281.

The answer A is correct because user activity monitoring is the most effective control to mitigate against the risk of inappropriate activity by employees. User activity monitoring (UAM) is the process of tracking and recording the actions and behaviors of users on devices, networks, or applications that belong to an organization. UAM can help to prevent, detect, and respond to insider threats, such as data theft, fraud, sabotage, or misuse of resources. UAM can also help to enforce policies, ensure compliance, and improve productivity and performance.

Some of the benefits of UAM are:

Prevention: UAM can deter employees from engaging in inappropriate activity by making them aware that their actions are monitored and recorded. UAM can also prevent unauthorized access or use of sensitive data or resources by implementing access controls, encryption, or alerts.

Detection: UAM can detect any anomalies, deviations, or violations in user activity by analyzing the data collected from various sources, such as logs, keystrokes, screenshots, or video recordings. UAM can also use artificial intelligence or machine learning to identify patterns, trends, or risks in user behavior.

Response: UAM can respond to any incidents or issues related to user activity by notifying the relevant stakeholders, such as managers, security teams, or auditors. UAM can also provide evidence or proof of user activity for investigation or remediation purposes.

Some examples of UAM tools are:

Teramind: Teramind is a cloud-based UAM platform that offers features such as user behavior analytics, risk scoring, policy enforcement, data loss prevention, and productivity optimization.

Digital Guardian: Digital Guardian is a data protection platform that offers UAM capabilities such as endpoint detection and response, data classification and tagging, and threat hunting and incident response.

XPLG: XPLG is a log management and analysis platform that offers UAM features such as log aggregation and correlation, user behavior profiling and anomaly detection, and real-time alerts and dashboards.

The other options are not as effective as option A. Two-factor authentication (option B) is a security mechanism that requires users to provide two pieces of evidence to verify their identity before accessing a system or resource. Two-factor authentication can enhance the security and privacy of user accounts, but it does not monitor or record the user activity after the authentication. Network segmentation (option C) is a technique that divides a network into smaller subnetworks based on criteria such as function, location, or security level. Network segmentation can improve the performance, security, and manageability of a network by reducing congestion, isolating threats, and enforcing policies. However, network segmentation does not track or record the user activity within each segment of the network. Access recertification (option D) is a process that verifies and validates the access rights of users to systems or resources periodically or on-demand. Access recertification can ensure that users have the appropriate level of access based on their roles and responsibilities, but it does not monitor or record the user activity with the access rights.

The auditor’s best course of action after discovering instances where employees shared license keys to critical pieces of business software is to verify whether the licensing agreement allows shared use. A licensing agreement is a contract between the software provider and the user that defines the terms and conditions of using the software, including the number, type, and scope of licenses granted. Some licensing agreements may allow shared use of license keys among multiple users or devices, while others may prohibit or restrict such use. By verifying the licensing agreement, the auditor can determine whether the employees violated the contract or not, and whether there are any legal or financial risks or implications for the organization.

The other options are not as appropriate as option D, as they may not address the root cause of the issue or provide a comprehensive solution. Recommending the utilization of software licensing monitoring tools may help prevent or detect future instances of license key sharing, but it does not resolve the current situation or ensure compliance with the licensing agreement. Recommending the purchase of additional software license keys may be unnecessary or wasteful if the licensing agreement already allows shared use or if there are unused licenses available. Validating user need for shared software licenses may help identify the reasons or motivations behind license key sharing, but it does not justify or excuse such behavior if it violates the licensing agreement.

EVA is a project management technique that measures the performance of a project by comparing the actual work completed, the actual costs incurred, and the planned costs for the work scheduled. EVA can help determine if the project is on track, ahead of schedule, or behind schedule, and if the project is under budget, over budget, or on budget. EVA can also help forecast the final cost and schedule of the project based on the current performance.

References

ISACA CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 255

18. Project Completion – Project Management – 2nd Edition

How to Measure Project Success | Smartsheet

The management decision that presents the greatest risk associated with data leakage is not providing security awareness training to staff. This is because staff are often the weakest link in the information security chain, and they may unintentionally or maliciously leak sensitive data through various channels, such as email, social media, cloud storage, or removable media. Security awareness training is essential to educate staff on the importance of protecting data, the policies and procedures for handling data, and the best practices for preventing and reporting data leakage incidents. Not requiring desktops to be encrypted, allowing staff to work remotely, and not updating security policies in the past year are also management decisions that may increase the risk of data leakage, but they are not as significant as not providing security awareness training to staff. Encryption, remote work, and security policies are technical or administrative controls that can be implemented or enforced by management, but they cannot fully prevent or mitigate human errors or malicious actions by staff. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), [ISACA Privacy Principles and Program Management Guide]

The greatest risk to an organization’s ability to manage QC processes is the lack of policies and procedures that define the QC objectives, standards, methods, roles, and responsibilities. Without policies and procedures, the QC processes may be inconsistent, ineffective, inefficient, or noncompliant with the relevant regulations and best practices. Policies and procedures provide the foundation and guidance for the QC processes and help to ensure their quality, reliability, and accountability.

References

ISACA CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 253

Quality Control - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Quality Control: Meaning, Importance, Definition and Objectives

 Requiring written authorization for all payment transactions is the IS auditor’s best recommendation for a compensating control in an environment where segregation of duties (SoD) cannot be enforced in an accounts payable system. SoD is a principle that requires different individuals or functions to perform different tasks or roles in a business process, such as initiating, approving, recording and reconciling transactions. SoD reduces the risk of errors, fraud and misuse of resources by preventing any single person or function from having excessive or conflicting authority or responsibility. A compensating control is a control that mitigates or reduces the risk associated with the absence or weakness of another control. Requiring written authorization for all payment transactions is a compensating control that provides an independent verification and approval of each transaction before it is processed by the accounts payable system. This control can help to detect and prevent unauthorized, duplicate or erroneous payments, and to ensure compliance with policies and procedures. The other options are not as effective as option A, as they do not provide an independent verification or approval of payment transactions. Restricting payment authorization to senior staff members is a control that limits the number of people who can authorize payments, but it does not prevent them from initiating or processing payments themselves, which could violate SoD. Reconciling payment transactions with invoices is a control that verifies that the payments match the invoices, but it does not prevent unauthorized, duplicate or erroneous payments from being processed by the accounts payable system. Reviewing payment transaction history is a control that monitors and analyzes thepayment transactions after they have been processed by the accounts payable system, but it does not prevent unauthorized, duplicate or erroneous payments from occurring in the first place. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 5: Protection of Information Assets, Section 5.2: Logical Access.

The best answer is D. Compliance audit.

The auditor is testing whether employee behavior complies with organizational rules or policy regarding the use of the organization’s car. ISACA defines IT compliance as adherence to mandated requirements from laws, regulations, contractual obligations, and internal policies. Since the scenario is about checking whether employees are following the organization’s rule on permitted use, the audit is primarily a compliance-oriented review.

Option A could be tempting because misuse of a company car might be abusive, but the question does not say the auditor is investigating intentional deception or a suspected fraud scheme. Option B is incorrect because this is not primarily about fair presentation of financial statements. Option C is not the best fit because the audit objective is not evaluation of business function performance, but adherence to policy.

Therefore, the correct answer is D, because the auditor is determining whether employees are complying with the organization’s established usage rules.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA, IT Compliance — compliance includes adherence to internal policies.

ISACA, An Integrated Approach to Security Audits — audits assess adherence to required controls and obligations.

Shadow IT often arises when approved software does not meet user requirements (Option D), leading employees to seek alternative solutions.

ISACA CISA Reference: IT governance frameworks stress the need for user-centric IT policies to mitigate shadow IT risks.

Risk Implication: Shadow IT introduces security vulnerabilities, compliance risks, and potential data breaches.

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

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

The greatest concern for an IS auditor when auditing an organization’s IT strategy development process is that information security was not included as a key objective in the IT strategic plan. Information security is a vital component of IT strategy, as it ensures the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information assets, and supports the business objectives and regulatory compliance. The other options are not as significant as the lack of information security in the IT strategic plan. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1, Section 1.31

An insider attack poses the greatest risk to an organization’s most sensitive data. An insider attack is a type of cyberattack that is carried out by someone who has legitimate access to the organization’s network, systems, or data, such as an employee, contractor, or business partner. An insider attack can be intentional or unintentional, malicious or negligent, and can have various motives, such as financial gain, revenge, espionage, sabotage, or curiosity.

An insider attack poses the greatest risk to an organization’s most sensitive data because:

An insider has a high level of trust and privilege within the organization, which allows them to bypass security controls and access confidential or restricted data without raising suspicion or detection.

An insider has a deep knowledge of the organization’s operations, processes, policies, and vulnerabilities, which enables them to exploit them effectively and cause maximum damage or disruption.

An insider can use various techniques and tools to conceal their identity and actions, such as encryption, steganography, deletion, or alteration of logs or evidence.

An insider can cause significant harm or loss to the organization in terms of data integrity, availability, confidentiality, reputation, compliance, and profitability.

According to the 2023 Cost of Insider Threats Global Report by Ponemon Institute and ObserveIT 1, the average annual cost of insider threats for organizations worldwide was $11.45 million in 2022, a 31% increase from 2018. The report also found that the average number of incidents per organization was 77 in 2022, a 47% increase from 2018. The report classified insider threats into three categories: careless or negligent employees or contractors, criminal or malicious insiders, and credential thieves. The report revealed that careless or negligent insiders were the most common and costly type of insider threat, accounting for 62% of all incidents and $4.58 million in costs.

The other options are not the greatest risk to an organization’s most sensitive data, although they can still pose significant threats.

A password attack is a type of cyberattack that attempts to guess or crack a user’s password to gain unauthorized access to their account or system. A password attack can use various methods, such as brute force, dictionary, rainbow table, phishing, keylogging, or social engineering. A password attack can compromise the security and privacy of the user’s data and information. However, a password attack can be prevented or mitigated by using strong and unique passwords, changing passwords frequently, enabling multi-factor authentication (MFA), and avoiding clicking on suspicious links or attachments.

An eavesdropping attack is a type of cyberattack that intercepts or monitors the communication between two parties without their knowledge or consent. An eavesdropping attack can use various techniques, such as wiretapping, packet sniffing, man-in-the-middle (MITM), or side-channel. An eavesdropping attack can expose the content and metadata of the communication, such as messages, files, voice calls, emails, etc. However, an eavesdropping attack can be prevented or mitigated by using encryption, authentication, digital signatures, VPNs (virtual private networks), or secure protocols.

A spear phishing attack is a type of phishing attack that targets a specific individual or group with personalized and convincing emails that appear to come from a trusted source. A spear phishing attack aims to trick the recipient into clicking on a malicious link or attachment that can infect their device with malware or steal their credentials or data. A spear phishing attack can compromise the security and privacy of the recipient’s data and information. However, a spear phishing attack can be prevented or mitigated by verifying the sender’s identity and email address, checking the email content for spelling and grammar errors, hovering over links before clicking on them (or not clicking at all), scanning attachments for viruses before opening them (or not opening at all), and reporting suspicious emails to IT security staff.

 Implementing an email containerization solution on personal devices is the best recommendation for an IS auditor, because it allows the organization to separate and secure the email data from the rest of the device data. Email containerization creates a virtual environment that encrypts andisolates the email data, preventing unauthorized access, leakage, or loss of sensitive information12. Requiring passwords or antivirus protection on personal devices may not be sufficient or enforceable, while prohibiting employees from storing companyemail onpersonal devices may not be feasible or practical. References: 1: CISA Review Manual (DigitalVersion), Chapter 5, Section 5.4.3 2: CISA Online Review Course, Module 5, Lesson 4

Unauthorized data modifications during conversion (D) are the most critical concern because they compromise data integrity, leading to inaccurate or corrupted information in the new system. Data migration should be performed with strict controls, including validation, reconciliation, and audit trails.

Other options:

Lack of online backups (A) is a risk but not as severe as compromised data integrity. Offline backups may still exist.

Undocumented change management (B) is a process deficiency but does not directly affect data accuracy.

Manual data conversion (C) increases risk but does not automatically indicate unauthorized changes.

 The best metric to assure compliance with the policy of providing security awareness training to all new employees is the percentage of new hires that have completed the training, as this directly measures the extent to which the policy is implemented and enforced. The number of new hires who have violated enterprise security policies, the number of reported incidents by new hires, and the percentage of new hires who report incidents are not directly related to the policy, as they may depend on other factors such as the nature and frequency of threats, the effectiveness of security controls, and the reporting culture of the organization. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.7

Monitoring systems rely heavily on thresholds to detect anomalies or incidents. If thresholds can be changed without proper change management controls, the entire system’s reliability is compromised because unauthorized or improper changes could either suppress critical alerts or generate excessive false positives. While senior management review (A) is important for governance, it does not directly affect the accuracy of monitoring results. Periodic threshold updates (B) are actually good practice as long as they are controlled. Third-party configuration (D) can be acceptable if properly governed. ISACA’s COBIT BAI06 (Managed IT Changes) stresses that all changes to production systems—including monitoring thresholds—must follow formal change control processes to maintain integrity and reliability.

References (ISACA): COBIT® 2019, BAI06 Managed IT Changes.

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

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

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

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

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

The use of access control lists (ACLs) is the most effective method to mitigate security risk for routers because they can limit Telnet and traffic from the open Internet. Telnet is a protocol that allows remote access to a device, which can pose a security threat if not properly controlled. Traffic from the open Internet can also contain malicious packets that can harm the network or the router itself. ACLs act as filters that can block or allow specific types of traffic based on predefined criteria, such as source and destination addresses, protocols, ports, and flags. By using ACLs, routers can prevent unauthorized access and reduce the exposure to potential attacks.

The best indication to an IS auditor that management’s post-implementation review was effective is that lessons learned were documented and applied, as this shows that the management has identified and addressed the issues and gaps that arose during the implementation, and has improved the processes and practices for future projects. Business and IT stakeholders participating in the post-implementation review is a good practice, but it does not guarantee that the review was effective or that the outcomes were implemented. Post-implementation review being a formal phase in the system development life cycle (SDLC) is a requirement, but it does not ensure that the review was effective or that the outcomes were implemented. Internal audit follow-up being completed without any findings is a desirable result, but it does not indicate that the management’s post-implementation review was effectiveorthat the outcomes were implemented. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: Information Systems Acquisition, Development andImplementation, Section 3.2: Project Management Practices1

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 best way to reduce the risk of inaccurate or misleading data proliferating through business intelligence systems is to establish rules for converting data from one format to another, because this ensures that the data quality and integrity are maintained throughout the data transformation process. Data conversion rules define the standards, procedures, and methods for transforming data from different sources and formats into a common format andstructure that can be used by the business intelligence systems12. Implementing data entry controlsfor new and existing applications, implementing a consistent database indexing strategy, and developing a metadata repository to store and access metadata are not the best ways to reduce the risk of inaccurate or misleading dataproliferating through business intelligence systems, becausethey do not address the issue of dataconversion, which is a critical step in the data integration process for business intelligence systems. References: 1: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3 2: CISA Online Review Course, Module 4, Lesson 3

A post-incident review (PIR) is a process to review the incident information from occurrence to closure and to identify potential findings and recommendations for improvement1. The most important reason for an IS auditor to examine the results of a PIR is to evaluate the effectiveness of continuous improvement efforts and to ensure that the lessons learned from the incident are implemented and followed up2. A PIR can help an organization to eliminate or reduce the risk of the incident to re-occur, improve the initial incident detection time, identify improvements needed to diagnose and repair the incident, and update the incident management best practices1. Therefore, a PIR is a valuable source of information for an IS auditor to assess the maturity and performance of the organization’s incident management process.

A governing body monitors IT performance most effectively when IT performance metrics are aligned with business goals. ISACA’s COBIT-based governance guidance consistently emphasizes that metrics should help leadership and governing bodies monitor the achievement of enterprise business goals and related IT goals. Metrics are useful for governance only when they are connected to what the enterprise is trying to achieve.

Option D is correct because a governing body is responsible for oversight at the strategic level. Strategic oversight depends on understanding whether IT is supporting business objectives, not just whether technical measures are being collected. ISACA states that metrics help management monitor achievements of business-related and IT-related goals.

Option A is useful at an operational or service management level, but it is narrower than business alignment. Service delivery objectives matter, yet the governing body’s concern is broader enterprise value and strategic alignment.

Option B is not the best answer because manufacturer recommendations may help establish technical asset baselines, but they do not ensure metrics support governance needs or enterprise performance oversight.

Option C is attractive because automated, quantitative data improves reliability and efficiency, but automation alone does not guarantee the metrics are the right ones. Governance requires relevant metrics tied to business outcomes, not just easily measured data.

Therefore, D is the best answer because proper alignment between business goals and IT performance metrics is what most enables a governing body to monitor IT performance meaningfully.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA Journal, Performance Measurement Metrics for IT Governance — metrics help management monitor achievement of business-related and IT-related goals.

ISACA Journal, How to Construct a Governance System From the Board Level to the Code Level — enterprise goals are cascaded into IT alignment goals, metrics and results.

ISACA, Charting the Course of IT Governance — performance measurement involves defining and monitoring KPIs for IT and communicating performance to stakeholders.

ISACA, Seven Key Features, Lessons and Tips From a COBIT Journey of 27 Years — COBIT uses goals, metrics and capabilities at enterprise and IT levels.

The most important thing to consider before including an audit of IT capacity management in the program is whether the system’s performance poses a significant risk to the organization. IT capacity management is a process that ensures that IT resources are sufficient to meet current and future business needs, and that they are optimized for cost and performance. A poor IT capacity management can result in system slowdowns, outages, failures, or breaches, which can affect the availability, reliability, security, and efficiency of IT services and business processes. Therefore, before conducting an audit of IT capacity management, the auditor should assess the potential impact and likelihood of these risks on the organization’s objectives, reputation, compliance, and customer satisfaction.

Whether system delays result in more frequent use of manual processing (option A) is not the most important thing to consider before including an audit of IT capacity management in the program, as it is only one possible consequence of poor IT capacity management. Manual processing can introduce errors, delays, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies in the data and reports, which can affect the quality and accuracy of financial information. However, manual processing is not the only or the worst outcome of poor IT capacity management; there may be other more severe or frequent risks that need to be considered.

Whether stakeholders are committed to assisting with the audit (option C) is also not the most important thing to consider before including an audit of IT capacity management in the program, as it is a factor that affects the feasibility and effectiveness of the audit, not the necessity or priority of it. Stakeholder commitment is important for ensuring that the auditor has access to relevant information, documents, data, and personnel, as well as for facilitating communication, collaboration, and feedback during the audit process. However, stakeholder commitment is not a sufficient reason to conduct an audit of IT capacity management; there must be a clear risk-based rationale for selecting this area for audit.

Whether internal auditors have the required skills to perform the audit (option D) is also not the most important thing to consider before including an audit of IT capacity management in the program, as it is a factor that affects the quality and credibility of the audit, not the urgency or importance of it. Internal auditors should have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to perform an audit of IT capacity management, which may include technical, business, analytical, and communication skills. However, internal auditors can also acquire or supplement these skills through training, coaching, consulting, or outsourcing. Therefore, internal auditors’ skills are not a decisive factor for choosing this area for audit.

Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

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

 Risk assessment is a mandatory part of the annual audit planning process, as it helps to identify and prioritize the areas that pose the highest risk to the organization’s objectives and operations. Risk assessment involves analyzing the internal and external factors that affect the organization’s risk profile, evaluating the likelihood and impact of potential events or scenarios, assessing the existing controls and mitigation strategies, and determining the residual risk level. Based on the risk assessment results, the IS auditor can allocate resources and schedule audits accordingly. A business impact analysis (BIA) is a process that identifies and evaluates the critical business functions and processes that could be disrupted by a disaster or incident, and estimates the potential impact on the organization’s operations, reputation and finances. A BIA is not a mandatory part of the annual audit planning process, but it can be used as an input for risk assessment or as a subject for audit. Fieldwork is the phase of an audit where the IS auditor collects evidence to support the audit objectives and conclusions. Fieldwork is not part of the annual audit planning process, but it is part of each individual audit engagement. A risk control matrix is a tool that maps the risks identified in a risk assessment to the controls that mitigate them. A risk control matrix is not a mandatory part of the annual audit planning process, but it can be used as an output of risk assessment or as a tool for audit testing. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) 1, Chapter 1: Information Systems Auditing Process, Section 1.2: Audit Planning.

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 correct answer is D. System uptime was 5% below the average target range.

For an e-commerce organization, system availability is directly tied to revenue, customer trust, transaction processing, and business continuity. If system uptime is below the target range, customers may be unable to browse, order, pay, or receive services. This can cause financial loss, reputational damage, customer dissatisfaction, and breach of service expectations.

Option A is a concern, but a 5% maintenance budget overrun is usually less important than reduced system availability in an e-commerce environment. Option B is not the greatest concern because risk manager approval may be useful, but the more direct business issue is degraded availability. Option C may indicate capacity or performance concerns, but uptime below target is a clearer and more immediate business-impact issue.

This maps to Information Systems Operations and Business Resilience because ISACA’s CISA Exam Content Outline includes IT operations, systems availability, capacity management, incident/problem management, and business resilience under Domain 4.

The IS auditor’s best course of action if they suspect an organization’s computer may have been used to commit a crime is to contact the incident response team to conduct an investigation. The incident response team is a group of experts who are responsible for responding to security incidents, such as data breaches, ransomware attacks, or cybercrimes. The incident response team can help to preserve and collect digital evidence, determine the scope and impact of the incident, contain and eradicate the threat, and restore normal operations. The IS auditor should not examine the computer themselves, as they may inadvertently alter or destroy potential evidence, or compromise the chain of custody. The IS auditor should also not notify local law enforcement before further investigation, as this may escalate the situation unnecessarily or interfere with the internal investigation process. The IS auditor should advise management of the crime after the investigation, or as soon as possible if there is an imminent risk or legal obligation to do so.

This means that the organization should obtain the source code from the escrow agent and compare it with the current version of the application that they are using. The organization should then identify and apply any changes or updates that are missing or different in the escrow version, so that it matches the current version. This way, the organization can ensure that they have a complete and accurate copy of the source code that reflects their current needs and requirements.

Bringing the escrow version up to date can help the organization to avoid or reduce the risks and costs associated with using an outdated or incompatible version of the source code. For example, an older version of the source code may have bugs, errors, or vulnerabilities that could affect the functionality, security, or performance of the application. An older version of the source code mayalso lack some features, enhancements, or integrations that could improve the usability, efficiency, or value of the application. An older version of the source code may also not comply with some standards, regulations, or contracts that could affect the quality, reliability, or legality of the application1.

The other options are not as good as bringing the escrow version up to date for the organization. Option A, analyzing a new application that meets the current requirements, is a possible option but it may be more time-consuming, expensive, and risky than updating the existing application. The organization may have to go through a complex and lengthy process of selecting, acquiring, implementing, testing, and migrating to a new application, which could disrupt their operations and performance. The organization may also have to deal with compatibility, interoperability, or data quality issues when switching to a new application2. Option B, performing an analysis to determine the business risk, is a necessary step but not a recommendation for the organization. The organization should already be aware of the business risk of using an application whose vendor has gone out of business and whose escrow has an older version of the source code. The organization should focus on finding and implementing a solution to mitigate or eliminate this risk3. Option D, developing a maintenance plan to support the application using the existing code, is not a feasible option because it assumes that the organization has access to the existing code. However, this is not the case because the vendor has gone out of business and the escrow has an older version of the source code. The organization cannot support or maintain an application without having a complete and accurate copy of its source code.

The primary difference between a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) and a Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) lies in their timeframe for activation and overall scope.

BCP (Business Continuity Plan):

Focuses on ensuring that critical business processes continue operating during and after a disruption.

It includes strategies for maintaining operations (e.g., alternative work locations, manual procedures, supplier dependencies).

Activated immediately when a disruption occurs to keep the business running.

DRP (Disaster Recovery Plan):

Primarily focuses on the recovery of IT systems and infrastructure after a disruption.

It includes steps for restoring data, servers, and applications to bring IT operations back to normal.

Activated after the disaster event to restore normal IT operations.

The timeframe for activation is the key difference because:

BCP is implemented immediately to ensure business continuity.

DRP is implemented after the disaster to restore IT operations.

A. The annual testing requirements → Both BCP and DRP require regular testing, so this is not the key differentiator.

B. The focus on system recovery → Only DRP focuses on system recovery, but the BCP covers more than just IT. The key difference is still the timeframe.

D. The involvement of senior management → Senior management is involved in both plans, so this is not the primary distinction.

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.

Segregation of duties (SoD) is a key internal control that aims to prevent fraud and errors by ensuring that no single individual can perform incompatible or conflicting tasks within a business process. SoD reduces the risk of unauthorized or improper transactions, manipulation of data, or misappropriation of assets.

In the accounts payable department, SoD involves separating the following functions: invoice processing, payment authorization, payment execution, and reconciliation. For example, the person who approves an invoice should not be the same person who issues the payment or reconciles the bank statement.

One of the best ways to ensure appropriate SoD within the accounts payable department is to restrict program functionality according to user security profiles. This means that each user of the accounts payable system should have a unique login and password, and should only have access to the functions that are relevant to their role and responsibilities. For instance, an invoice processor should not be able to approve payments or modify vendor records. This way, the system can enforce SoD and prevent unauthorized or fraudulent activities.

The other options are not as effective as restricting program functionality according to user security profiles. Restricting access to update programs to accounts payable staff only is a general access control measure, but it does not address the SoD issue within the accounts payable department. Including the creator’s user ID as a field in every transaction record created is a useful audit trail feature, but it does not prevent users from performing incompatible functions. Ensuring that audit trails exist for transactions is a detective control that can help identify and investigate any irregularities, but it does not prevent them from occurring in the first place.

The most significant risk from this observation is that access rights may not be removed in a timely manner. If the process for removing access for terminated employees is not documented, there is no clear guidance or accountability for who, how, when, and what actions should be taken to revoke the access rights of the employees who leave the organization. This could result in delays, inconsistencies, or omissions in removing access rights, which could allow terminated employees to retain unauthorized access to the organization’s systems and data. This could compromise the security, confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information assets. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

CISA Questions, Answers and Explanations Database

The most important determining factor when establishing appropriate timeframes for follow-up activities related to audit findings is the remediation dates included in management responses. The IS auditor should ensure that the follow-up activities are aligned with the agreed-upon action plans and deadlines that management has committed to in response to the audit findings. The follow-up activities should verify that management has implemented the corrective actions effectively and in a timely manner, and that the audit findings have been resolved or mitigated.

The other options are less important factors for establishing timeframes for follow-up activities:

Availability of IS audit resources. This is a practical factor that may affect the scheduling and execution of follow-up activities, but it should not override the priority and urgency of verifying management’s corrective actions.

Peak activity periods for the business. This is a factor that may affect the availability and cooperation of auditees during follow-up activities, but it should not delay or postpone the verification of management’s corrective actions beyond reasonable limits.

Complexity of business processes identified in the audit. This is a factor that may affect the scope and depth of follow-up activities, but it should not affect the timeframe for verifying management’s corrective actions.

In reviewing the IT strategic plan, the IS auditor should consider whether it identifies the major IT initiatives that are aligned with the organization’s vision, mission, and objectives, and that support the business strategy and priorities12. The major IT initiatives should also be realistic, measurable, and achievable, and should have clear timelines, budgets, and responsibilities34.

References

1: IT Strategy Template for a Successful Strategic Plan | Gartner2 2: IT Strategy Template for a Successful Strategic Plan | Gartner4 3: Conduct a Strategic Plan Review and Assessment - Governance3 4: Time To Conduct A Strategy Review? Here’s How To Get Started1

 An IS auditor should be concerned because deleting the files logically does not overwrite the files’ physical data. Deleting a file from a hard disk only removes the reference or pointer to the file from the file system, but does not erase the actual data stored on the disk sectors. The deleted data can still be recovered using special tools or techniques until it is overwritten by new data. This poses a risk of data leakage, theft, or misuse if the hard disk falls into the wrong hands. To securely dispose of a system containing sensitive data, the hard disk should be wiped or sanitized using methods that overwrite or destroy the physical data beyond recovery. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

CISA Questions, Answers and Explanations Database

The best assurance of data integrity after file transfers is hash values. Hash values are unique strings that are generated by applying a mathematical function to the data. Hash values can be used to verify that the data has not been altered or corrupted during the transfer, as any change in the data would result in a different hash value. By comparing the hash values of the source and destination files, one can confirm that the data is identical and intact.

The other options are not as effective as hash values for ensuring data integrity after file transfers. Check digits are digits added to a number to detect errors in data entry or transmission, but they are not reliable for detecting intentional or complex modifications of the data. Monetary unit sampling is a statistical sampling technique used for auditing financial statements, but it is not applicable for verifying data integrity after file transfers. Reasonableness check is a validation method that checks whether the data falls within an expected range or format, but it does not guarantee that the data is accurate or consistent with the source.