CISA Exam Dumps - Isaca Certification Questions and Answers

Mapping IT processes to roles is an activity that provides an IS auditor with the most insight regarding potential single person dependencies that might exist within the organization. Single person dependencies occur when only one person has the knowledge, skills, or access rights to perform a critical IT function. Mapping IT processes to roles can help to identify such dependencies and assess their impact on the continuity and security of IT operations. The other activities do not provide as much insight into single person dependencies, as they do not show the relationship between IT processes and roles. References: CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 94

The first step in an incident response plan is typically preparation12. However, among the options provided, validating the incident would be the first step. This involves confirming that a security event is actually an incident3. It’s important to verify the event to avoid wasting resources on false positives.

 The advantage of using agile software development methodology over the waterfall methodology is that it allows for quicker deliverables. Agile software development is an iterative and incremental approach that emphasizes customer feedback, collaboration, and adaptation. Agile software development delivers working software in short cycles, called sprints, that typically last from two to four weeks. This enables the development team to respond to changing requirements, deliver value faster, and improve quality. Waterfall software development is a linear and sequential approach that follows a predefined set of phases, such as planning, analysis, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance. Waterfall software development requires a clear and stable definition of the project scope, deliverables, and expectations before starting the development process. Waterfall software development can be slow, rigid, and costly, especially if changes occur during the later stages of the project. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: Information Systems Acquisition, Development and Implementation, Section 3.1: Project Management Practices

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

Measurable Benefits Not Defined (Correct Answer – D)

No clear KPIs or success metricsmeans no way toevaluate ROI.

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

No Lessons Learned (Incorrect – A)

Important but doesnot impact system effectiveness.

Missing Dashboard Deliverables (Incorrect – B)

A reporting issue,not a strategic failure.

Budget Overrun (Incorrect – C)

A financial concern butnot as critical as system success measurement.

 Providing security certification for a new system should include an evaluation of the configuration management practices prior to the system’s implementation. Configuration management is a process that ensures that the system’s components are identified, controlled, and tracked throughout the system’s lifecycle. Configuration management helps to maintain the security and integrity of the system by preventing unauthorized or unintended changes. End-user authorization to use the system in production is not part of security certification, but rather a post-implementation activity that grants access rights to authorized users. External audit sign-off on financial controls is not part of security certification, but rather a verification activity that ensures that the system complies with financial reporting standards. Testing of the system within the production environment is not part of securitycertification, but rather a validation activity that ensures that the system meets the functional and performance requirements. References:

CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, pages 449-4501

CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database, Question ID: 2572

Comprehensive and Detailed in-Depth Explanation:

During the preliminary phase, the auditor ' s goal is to understand the key areas of the business process to identify potential risks and areas that need deeper examination. This understanding helps in planning the audit effectively.

Identifying weaknesses (Option A) occurs later, while optimization (Option B) and resource understanding (Option D) are not primary objectives at this stage.

ISACA CISA Reference: Domain 1 - Information System Auditing Process

The best answer is A. To ensure the appropriate level of protection to assets.

ISACA guidance explains that asset categorization indicates the level of concern that should be given to an asset, and that identifying and classifying critical assets is done to avoid adverse effects from theft, loss, compromise, or misuse. In other words, classification tells the organization how much protection a given asset requires.

Option B may be a by-product, but alignment to standards is not the primary reason. Option C is broader than the specific purpose of classification. Option D may follow from classification, but classification is primarily about matching protection strength to asset importance and sensitivity.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA Journal, IT Asset Valuation, Risk Assessment and Control Implementation Model

ISACA Journal, Effective Reporting to the BoD on Critical Assets

A digital signature is a specific type of e-signature that is backed by a digital certificate. A digital certificate is a document that contains the public key of a signer and is issued by a trusted third party called a certificate authority (CA). A digital signature provides proof of the identity of the signer and the integrity of the signed document.

A characteristic of a digital signature is that it is unique to the message. This means that a digital signature cannot be copied from one document to another without being detected as invalid. A digital signature is created by applying a mathematical function called a hashing algorithm to the document. A hashing algorithm produces a fixed-length output called a hash or digest from any input data. The hash is unique to the input data; any change in the input data will result in a different hash.

The signer then encrypts the hash with their private key (a secret key that only they know) to create the digital signature. The encrypted hash is attached to the document as the digital signature. The recipient of the document can verify the digital signature by decrypting it with the signer’s public key (a key that is publicly available and matches the private key) to obtain the hash. The recipient then applies the same hashing algorithm to the document to generate another hash. The recipient then compares the two hashes; if they match, it means that the document has not been altered and that the signer is authentic.

Therefore, a digital signature is unique to the message because it is derived from the hash of the message, which is unique to the message.

 Recounting the transaction records to ensure no records are missing provides assurance that the best transactions were recovered successfully from a snapshot copy. This is because recounting the transaction records can verify that the number of records in the restored database matches the number of records in the snapshot copy, which represents the state of the database before the deletion occurred. Recounting the transaction records can also detect any data corruption or inconsistency that may have occurred during the restore process1.

Reviewing transaction recovery logs to ensure no errors were recorded is not the best answer, because transaction recovery logs may not capture all the details or issues that may affect the data quality or integrity. Transaction recovery logs are mainly used to monitor and troubleshoot the restore process, but they may not reflect the actual content or accuracy of the restored data2.

Rerunning the process on a backup machine to verify the results are the same is not the best answer, because rerunning the process may introduce additional errors or inconsistencies that may affect the data quality or integrity. Rerunning theprocess may also consume more time and resources than necessary, and it may not guarantee that the results are identical to the original data3.

Comparing transaction values against external statements to verify accuracy is not the best answer, because external statements may not be available or reliable for all transactions. External statements are documents or reports that provide information about transactions from a third-party source, such as a bank, a vendor, or a customer. However, external statements may not cover all transactions, or they may have differentformats, standards, or timeliness than the internal data

To ensurecompleteness of outbound transactions, alog with periodic validationis thebest control.

Option A (Incorrect):Edit checkshelp withdata accuracy, not completeness.

Option B (Incorrect):Sequential numberingdetects missing transactions but does not verifyactual transmission.

Option C (Incorrect):Recipient ID validationis important foraccuracy, not for ensuring all transactions are sent.

Option D (Correct):Maintaining and validating transaction logsensures thatall outbound transactions are properly accounted for, making it the best completeness control.

 The organization is primarily responsible for the security configurations of the deployed application’s operating system when migrating its HR application to an Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) model in a private cloud. This is because in an IaaS model, the cloud provider is responsible for the security of the underlying infrastructure that they lease to their customers, such as servers, storage, and networks, while the customer is responsible for the security of the areas of the cloud infrastructure over which they have control, such as operating systems, middleware, and applications. Therefore, the organization needs to ensure that the operating system is properly configured, patched, hardened, and monitored to protect the HR application from unauthorized access or malicious attacks.

The other options are not primarily responsible for the security configurations of the deployed application’s operating system. The cloud provider’s external auditor is not responsible for any security configurations, but rather for verifying and reporting on the cloud provider’s compliance with relevant standards and regulations. The cloud provider is responsible for the security of the underlying infrastructure, but not for the operating system or any software installed on it by the customer. The operating system vendor is responsible for providing updates and patches for the operating system, but not for configuring or securing it according to the customer’s needs.

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 best way to evaluate the effectiveness of a new automated control is to review the written procedures that define the processes and controls. This will help the IS auditor to understand the objectives, scope, roles, responsibilities, and expected outcomes of the control. The written procedures will also provide a basis for testing the control and verifying its compliance with the audit finding recommendations. References:

ISACA Frameworks: Blueprints for Success

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

End-user computing (EUC) is a system in which users are able to create working applications besides the divided development process of design, build, test and release that is typically followed by software engineers1. Examples of EUC tools include spreadsheets, databases, low-code/no-code platforms, and generative AI applications2. EUC tools can provide flexibility, efficiency, and innovation for the users, but they also pose significant risks if not properly managed and controlled3.

The greatest risk when relying on reports generated by EUC is that the data may be inaccurate. Data accuracy refers to the extent to which the data in the reports reflect the true values of the underlying information4. Inaccurate data can lead to erroneous decisions, misleading analysis, unreliable reporting, and compliance violations. Some of the factors that can cause data inaccuracy in EUC reports are:

Lack of rigorous testing: EUC tools may not undergo the same level of testing and validation as IT-developed applications, which can result in errors, bugs, or inconsistencies in the data processing and output3.

Lack of version and change control: EUC tools may not have a clear record of the changes made to them over time, which can create confusion, duplication, or loss of data. Users may also modify or overwrite the data without proper authorization or documentation3.

Lack of documentation and reliance on end-user who developed it: EUC tools may not have sufficient documentation to explain their purpose, functionality, assumptions, limitations, and dependencies. Users may also rely on the knowledge and expertise of the original developer, who may not be available or may not have followed best practices3.

Lack of maintenance processes: EUC tools may not have regular updates, backups, or reviews to ensure their functionality and security. Users may also neglect to delete or archive obsolete or redundant data3.

Lack of security: EUC tools may not have adequate access controls, encryption, or authentication mechanisms to protect the data from unauthorized access, modification, or disclosure. Users may also store or share the data in insecure locations or devices3.

Lack of audit trail: EUC tools may not have a traceable history of the data sources, inputs, outputs, calculations, and transformations. Users may also manipulate or falsify the data without detection or accountability3.

Overreliance on manual controls: EUC tools may depend on human intervention to input, verify, or correct the data, which can introduce errors, delays, or biases. Users may also lack the skills or training to use the EUC tools effectively and efficiently3.

The other options are not as great as data inaccuracy when relying on EUC reports. Reports may not work efficiently, reports may not be timely, and historical data may not be available are all potential risks associated with EUC tools, but they are less severe and less frequent than data inaccuracy. Moreover, these risks can be mitigated by improving the performance, scheduling, and storage of the EUC tools. However, data inaccuracy can have a pervasive and lasting impact on the quality and credibility of the reports and the decisions based on them. Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

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.

Answer: B

 To ensure that management concerns are addressed, internal audit should recommend that the data quality team review the data reported to the regulatory body first. This is because this data set is the most relevant and critical to the issue that triggered the enhancement of the data quality program. The data reported to the regulatory body should be accurate, complete, consistent, and timely, as any discrepancies could result in fines, penalties, or reputational damage for the organization.Data with customer personal information is important for data quality, but it is not directly related to the regulatory reporting issue. Data supporting financial statements is important for data quality, but it may not be the same as the data reported to the regulatory body. Data impacting business objectives is important for data quality, but it may not be as urgent or sensitive as the data reported to the regulatory body. References:

CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, pages 404-4051

CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database, Question ID: 262

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.

The primary purpose of requiring source code escrow in a contractual agreement is to ensure the source code is available. Source code escrow is a service that involves depositing the source code of a software or system with a third-party agent or escrow provider, who can release it to a designated beneficiary under specific conditions, such as bankruptcy, termination, or breach of contract by the software vendor or developer. Source code escrow can help to protect the interests and rights of the software user or licensee, who may need access to the source code for maintenance, modification, enhancement, or troubleshooting purposes. The IS auditor should verify that the contractual agreement specifies the terms and conditions for source code escrow, such as the escrow agent,the escrow fees, the deposit frequency and format,the release events and procedures, and the verification and audit requirements. References: CISA ReviewManual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2

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

The best answer is C. Insufficient due diligence performed on the vendor.

ISACA guidance on third-party and cloud risk repeatedly emphasizes the need for thorough vendor due diligence before entering or expanding a business relationship. When confidential backups are being migrated to a cloud solution, insufficient due diligence is the greatest concern because it can expose the organization to security, privacy, resilience, and compliance failures across the whole service arrangement.

Option A is relevant for retired media handling, but it is narrower than the overall third-party risk. Option B affects performance and growth, not necessarily confidentiality. Option D is a business issue, but not the greatest audit concern when confidential data is involved. Vendor due diligence is the most important control at this stage.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA, The Top 5 Cybersecurity Threats and How to Defend Against Them.

ISACA Journal, The Encrypted Truth Is Already Out There.

 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 and Systems Resources | COBIT, Risk, Governance … - ISACA, CISACertification | Certified Information Systems Auditor | ISACA

Segregation of duties is a key internal control that aims to prevent fraud and errors by ensuring that no single individual has the authority to execute two or more conflicting sensitive transactions or functions. In the accounts payable vendor payment cycle, segregation of duties involves separating the tasks of vendor setup, procurement, invoice approval, and payment processing1. This way, an employee cannot create a fictitious vendor and issue a payment to themselves or their accomplices without being detected by another person. Therefore, the best way to prevent fraudulent payments is to implement segregation of duties between the vendorsetup and payment processing. References: 1: Segregation of Duties in the Accounts Payable Vendor Payment Cycle for SMBs - Now With a Podcast! - Debra R Richardson : What is Separation of duties - University of California, Berkeley

 Sampling risk is the risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be different from the conclusion that would be reached if the entire population was tested using the same audit procedure. Sampling risk can lead to either incorrect rejection or incorrect acceptance of the audit objective. The best way to minimize sampling risk is to perform statistical sampling. Statistical sampling is a method of selecting and evaluating a sample using probability theory and mathematical calculations. Statistical sampling allows auditors to measure and control the sampling risk by determining the appropriate sample size and selection method, and evaluating the results using confidence levels and precision intervals. Statistical sampling can also provide more objective and consistent results than judgmental sampling, which relies on the auditor’s professional judgment and experience.

 Following a configuration management process to maintain applications is the primary reason for ensuring proper change control. Configuration management is a process of identifying, documenting, controlling, and verifying the configuration items and their interrelationships within an IT system or environment. Following a configuration management process can help to ensure that any changes to the applications are authorized, tested, documented, and tracked throughout their lifecycle. This will help to prevent unauthorized or improper changes that could affect the functionality, performance, or security of the applications. The other options are not the primary reasons for following a configuration management process, but rather possible benefits or outcomes of doing so. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.3.31

CISA Review Questions, Answers and Explanations Database, Question ID 225

Implementing incident escalation procedures is the best way to ensure that an incident receives attention from appropriate personnel in a timely manner, because it defines the roles and responsibilities, communication channels, and escalation criteria for handlingdifferent types of incidents34. Incident escalation procedures help to prioritize and coordinate the response efforts and ensure that the incident is resolved by the most qualified and authorized personnel. Completing the incident management log, broadcasting an emergency message, and requiring a dedicated incident response team are not sufficient to ensure that an incident receives attention from appropriate personnel in a timely manner, because they do not specify how to escalate the incident based onits severity, impact,or complexity. References: 3: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 6, Section 6.3.2 4: CISA Online Review Course, Module 6, Lesson 3

A top-down approach in the development of IT policies means that the policies are derived from the strategic objectives and goals of the organization, and are aligned with the business needs and expectations. This should result in greater consistency across the organization, as the policies will be coherent, integrated and applicable to all levels and functions of the organization. A bottom-up approach, on the other hand, means that the policies are developed by individual units or departments based on their operational needs and preferences, which may lead to inconsistency, duplication orconflict among different policies. References: ISACA Frameworks: Blueprints for Success, IT Governance and Process Maturity

 The auditor’s best course of action in this situation is to notify the audit manager. The audit manager is responsible for overseeing the audit follow-up process and ensuring that audit issues are resolved in a timely and satisfactory manner. The audit manager can then decide whether to escalate the matter to higher authorities, such as the chair of the audit committee, or to accept management’s decision and close the audit finding. The other options are not appropriate for the auditor to do without consulting with the audit manager first. Notifying the chair of the audit committee is a drastic step that may undermine the relationship between the auditor and management, and it should be done only after exhausting other means of resolving the issue. Retesting the control is not necessary, as management has already decided not to implement therecommendations. Closing the audit finding is premature, as management’s decision may not be aligned with the audit objectives or risk appetite. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.4

The best way to determine whether a test of a disaster recovery plan (DRP) was successful is to analyze whether predetermined test objectives were met. Test objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals that define what the test aims to accomplish and how it will be evaluated. Test objectives should be aligned with the DRP objectives and scope, and should cover aspects such as recovery time objectives (RTOs), recovery point objectives (RPOs), critical business functions, roles and responsibilities, communication channels, backup systems, and contingency procedures. By comparing the actual test results with the expected test objectives, the IS auditor can measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the DRP and identify any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed. 

The best answer is A.

ISACA portfolio-management guidance emphasizes that portfolios exist at the organizational level and should be managed in line with strategic objectives. Portfolio managers are expected to determine the optimal mix of initiatives and resources to achieve organizational goals while honoring strategic constraints. That makes grouping related projects into portfolios and assessing them against strategic objectives the strongest recommendation.

Option B is too narrow because infrastructure availability is only one possible value driver. Option C is also too narrow because risk reduction alone should not dominate the whole portfolio. Option D includes business value factors, but it is still narrower than full alignment to enterprise strategy. ISACA’s framing of portfolio management is broader: balance the portfolio and align it to strategic objectives.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA, Portfolio, Program and Project Management Using COBIT 5.

ISACA Journal, Essential Frameworks and Methodologies to Maximize the Value of IT.

ISACA Journal, The Power of IT Investment Risk Quantification and Visualization: IT Portfolio Management.

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

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

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

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

Thedata owneris the individual or entity responsible for classifying, protecting, and defining access permissions to data. They ensure that only authorized personnel can access, modify, or distribute data based on business needs and regulatory requirements.

Data Owner (Correct Answer – B)

The data owner is responsible forsetting user permissionsbased on job roles and business requirements.

According toISACA’s CISA Review Manual and COBIT 2019, the data owner determines access levels while IT personnel enforce them.

Example:A finance department head (data owner) determines that only certain accountants should access sensitive payroll data.

IT Operations Manager (Incorrect – A)

Oversees IT infrastructure but does not define data access controls.

Database Administrator (DBA) (Incorrect – C)

Implements and enforces security settings but follows rules set by the data owner.

Information Security Manager (Incorrect – D)

Provides security guidance but does not decide specific access permissions.

 Social engineering is the manipulation of people to perform actions or divulge confidential information. It is a common technique used by attackers to gain unauthorized access to systems or data. Employees who use public social networking sites may be vulnerable to social engineering attacks, such as phishing, baiting, or pretexting, which pose the greatest risk to the organization’s security. The other options are not as serious as social engineering, as they relate to web application vulnerabilities, intellectual property rights, and reputation management, which are less likely to compromise the organization’s assets or operations. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Domain 5: Protection of Information Assets, Section 5.3 Security Awareness Training1

This should result in a finding because it violates the best practice of setting rules for groups rather than users. According to one of the web search results1, using group permissions instead of individual permissions can simplify the management and maintenance of ACLs, reduce the risk of human errors, and ensure consistency and compliance. Individual permissions can create conflicts, confusion, and security gaps in the ACLs. Therefore, the IS auditor should report this as a finding and recommend using group permissions instead.

The most effective method for detecting the presence of an unauthorized wireless access point on an internal network is A. Continuous network monitoring. This is because continuous network monitoring can capture and analyze all the wireless traffic in the network and identify any rogue or spoofed devices that may be connected to the network without authorization. Continuous network monitoring can also alert the system administrator of any suspicious or anomalous activities on the network and help to locate and remove the unauthorized wireless access point quickly.

Periodic network vulnerability assessments (B) can also help to detect unauthorized wireless access points, but they are not as effective as continuous network monitoring, because they are performed at fixed intervals and may miss some devices that are added or removed between the assessments. Review of electronic access logs © can provide some information about the devices that access the network, but they may not be able to detect devices that use fake or stolen credentials or devices that do not generate any logs. Physical security reviews (D) can help to prevent unauthorized physical access to the network ports or devices, but they may not be able to detect wireless access points that are hidden or disguised as legitimate devices.

The most important control for virtualized environments is hardening for the hypervisor and guest machines. Hardening is the process of applying security measures and configurations to reduce the vulnerabilities and risks of a system or device. Hardening for the hypervisor and guest machines is essential for protecting the virtualized environments from attacks, as they are exposed to various threats from both the physical and virtual layers. Hardening for the hypervisor and guest machines involves the following steps:

Applying the latest patches and updates for the hypervisor and guest operating systems, as well as the applications and drivers running on them.

Configuring the firewall and network settings for the hypervisor and guest machines, to restrict and monitor the network traffic and prevent unauthorized access or communication.

Disabling or removing any unnecessary or unused features, services, accounts, or ports on the hypervisor and guest machines, to minimize the attack surface and reduce the potential entry points for attackers.

Enforcing strong authentication and authorization policies for the hypervisor and guest machines, to ensure that only authorized users or administrators can access or manage them.

Encrypting the data and communication for the hypervisor and guest machines, to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the information stored or transmitted on them.

Implementing logging and auditing mechanisms for the hypervisor and guest machines, to record and track any activities or events that occur on them, and enable detection and investigation of any incidents or anomalies.

Hardening for the hypervisor and guest machines can help prevent or mitigate common attacks on virtualized environments, such as:

Hypervisor escape: An attack where a malicious guest machine breaks out of its isolated environment and gains access to the hypervisor or other guest machines.

Hypervisor compromise: An attack where an attacker exploits a vulnerability or misconfiguration in the hypervisor to gain control over it or its resources.

Guest compromise: An attack where an attacker exploits a vulnerability or misconfiguration in a guest machine to gain access to its data or applications.

Guest impersonation: An attack where an attacker creates a fake or cloned guest machine to trick other guests or users into interacting with it.

Guest denial-of-service: An attack where an attacker consumes or exhausts the resources of a guest machine to disrupt its availability or performance.

Therefore, hardening for the hypervisor and guest machines is the most important control for virtualized environments, as it can enhance their security, reliability, and performance. For more information about hardening for virtualized environments, you can refer to some of these web sources:

Hypervisor security on the Azure fleet

Chapter 2: Hardening the Hyper-V host

Plan for Hyper-V security in Windows Server

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Secure code reviews identify security flaws or vulnerabilities in code before deployment. This makes them detective controls, since they help find issues but do not directly prevent or correct them.

Option A: Correct — they detect flaws.

Option B: Corrective controls are applied after issues are detected.

Option C: Monitoring is ongoing observation, not review-based.

Option D: Deterrent controls discourage actions (e.g., policies, warnings), not detect issues.

???? ISACA Reference: CISA Review Manual 27th Edition, Domain 3, section on software development controls and code review practices.

 The strategy that would provide the greatest assurance of system quality at implementation is delivering only the core functionality on the initial target date. This strategy can help avoid compromising the quality of the system by focusing on the essential features that meet the user needs and expectations. Delivering only the core functionality can also help reduce the scope creep, complexity, and testing efforts of the system development project.

Implementing overtime pay and bonuses for all development staff, utilizing new system development tools to improve productivity, and recruiting IS staff to expedite system development are not strategies that would provide the greatest assurance of system quality at implementation. These strategies may help speed up the system development process, but they may also introduce new risks or challenges such as burnout, learning curve, integration issues, or communication gaps. These risks or challenges may adversely affect the quality of the system.

A Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS) provider is responsible for system recovery procedures, including restoring systems and services in a disaster scenario. This is the core functionality of DRaaS.

Stakeholder Communications (Option B):This is typically managed internally by the organization to ensure alignment with its crisis management plan.

Validation of Recovered Data (Option C):The organization must verify data integrity to meet business requirements.

Maintaining Currency of Data (Option D):While DRaaS may handle data backups, the organization retains responsibility for ensuring the relevance of the data being backed up.

Integration testing is the best way to ensure that an application is performing according to its specifications, because it tests the interaction and compatibility of different modules or components of the application. Unit testing, pilot testing and system testing are also important, but they do not cover the whole functionality and integration of the application as well as integration testing does. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3

The central goal of DLP is to prevent sensitive data—such as PII, PHI, or intellectual property—from leaving the organization through unauthorized channels. DLP solutions monitor, detect, and block potential data exfiltration via email, endpoints, cloud applications, or removable media. While compliance (D) is often a driver, it is a secondary outcome of implementing DLP. Enhancing performance (A) and recovery automation (B) are not objectives of DLP. ISACA positions DLP as a critical control for confidentiality under DSS05 (Managed Security Services).

References (ISACA): COBIT® 2019, DSS05 Managed Security Services.