CISA Exam Dumps - Isaca Certification Questions and Answers

Hashing is a technique that transforms data into a fixed-length value, called a hash or a digest, that uniquely represents the original data. Hashing can be used to validate the integrity of data communicated between production databases and a big data analytics system by comparing the hash values of the data before and after the communication. If the hash values match, the data has not been altered; if they differ, the data has been tampered with or corrupted. Hashing is a better security control than encrypting, running and comparing the count function, or hosting a digital certificate for this purpose because:

Encrypting in-scope data sets can protect the confidentiality of the data, but not necessarily the integrity. Encryption algorithms can be broken or bypassed by malicious actors, or encryption keys can be compromised or lost. Moreover, encryption adds overhead to the communication process and may affect the performance of the big data analytics system.

Running and comparing the count function within the in-scope data sets can only verify the number of records or elements in the data sets, but not the content or quality of the data. The count function cannot detect any changes or errors in the data values, such as missing, duplicated, corrupted, or manipulated data.

Hosting a digital certificate for in-scope data sets can provide authentication and non-repudiation for the data sources, but not integrity for the data itself. A digital certificate is a document that contains information about the identity and public key of an entity, such as a person, organization, or device. A digital certificate does not contain or verify the actual data that is communicated between production databases and a big data analytics system.

A mirror backup is a type of backup that creates an exact copy of the source data to the destination, without using any compression or encryption. A mirror backup is the best backup scheme to recommend given the need for a shorter restoration time in the event of a disruption, because it allows for the fastest and easiest recovery of data. A mirror backup does not store any previous versions of the files, so it only reflects the current state of the source data. Therefore, a mirror backup requires less storage space than a full backup, but more than an incremental or differential backup.

A differential backup is a type of backup that stores the changes made to the source data since the last full backup. A differential backup requires less storage space and time than a full backup, but more than an incremental backup. However, a differential backup also requires more time and resources to restore than a mirror or full backup, because it needs to combine the last full backup and the latest differential backup to recover the data.

A full backup is a type of backup that copies all the files and folders from the source data to the destination, regardless of whether they have changed or not. A full backup provides the most complete protection of data and the simplest recovery process, but it also requires the most storage space and time to perform. A full backup is usually done periodically, such as weekly or monthly, and followed by incremental or differential backups.

An incremental backup is a type of backup that stores the changes made to the source data since the last backup, whether it was a full or an incremental backup. An incremental backup requires the least storage space and time to perform, but it also requires the most time and resources to restore, because it needs to combine all the previous backups in chronological order to recover the data.

A monitored mantrap at entrance and exit points would be the most effective compensating control in this scenario. A mantrap is a physical security access control system comprising a small space having two sets of interlockingdoors such that the first set of doors must close before the second set opens. By implementing a monitored mantrap, unauthorized access can be prevented and it can ensure that all individuals are logged when they enter and exit the server room12.

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

Sending a copy of the transaction logs to offsite storage on a daily basis would minimize the risk of losing transactions as a result of a disaster. This is because offsite storage provides a backup of the data that can be recovered in case of a catastrophic event that destroys or damages the onsite data. Storing a copy of the transaction logs onsite in a fireproof vault (B) would not protect the data from other types of disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, or theft. Encrypting © or signing (D) a copy of the transaction logs and storing them on a local server would not prevent the loss of data if the server is affected by the disaster. Encryption and digital signatures are security measures that protect the confidentiality and integrity of the data, but not the availability.

The sampling method in which the entire sample is considered to be irregular if a single error is found is discovery sampling. Discovery sampling is a type of statistical sampling that is used to test for the existence of at least one occurrence of a specific characteristic or condition in a population. Discovery sampling is often used when the auditor expects the characteristic or condition to be very rare or nonexistent, and when any occurrence would have a significant impact on the audit objective. For example, discovery sampling can be used to test for fraud, noncompliance, or material misstatement.

Discovery sampling works by setting a very low tolerable error rate (the maximum rate of occurrence of the characteristic or condition that the auditor is willing to accept) and a high confidence level (the degree of assurance that the auditor wants to obtain). The auditor then selects a sample from the population using a random or systematic method, and examines each item in the sample for the presence or absence of the characteristic or condition. If no error is found in the sample, the auditor can conclude with a high level of confidence that the characteristic or condition does not exist or is very rare in the population. However, if one or more errors are found in the sample, the auditor cannot draw any conclusion about the population and must either expand the sample size or perform alternative procedures.

Discovery sampling differs from other sampling methods in that it does not allow for any errors in the sample. Other sampling methods, such as variable sampling, stop-or-go sampling, or judgmental sampling, can tolerate some errors in the sample and use them to estimate the error rate or amount in the population. However, discovery sampling is designed to test for zero-tolerance situations, where any error would be unacceptable or material. Therefore, discovery sampling considers the entire sample to be irregular if a single error is found.

The primary benefit of a tabletop exercise for an incident response plan is to increase confidence in the team’s response readiness (D). A tabletop exercise is a simulated scenario that tests the effectiveness and efficiency of the incident response plan and team. It allows the team to practice their roles and responsibilities, review their procedures and tools, and identify and resolve any gaps or issues in their response process. A tabletop exercise can help the team to improve their skills, knowledge, and communication, and to prepare for real incidents1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The IS auditor’s next course of action should be to report this control process weakness to senior management, as it may indicate a lack of oversight and accountability for the reporting system. Read-only users may have access to sensitive or confidential information that should be restricted or monitored. Periodic reviews of read-only users are a good practice to ensure that the access rights are still valid and appropriate for the users’ roles and responsibilities. Reporting this weakness to senior management will also allow them to take corrective actions or implement compensating controls if needed.

Option A is incorrect because reviewing the list of end users and evaluating for authorization is not the IS auditor’s responsibility, but rather the system owner’s or administrator’s. The IS auditor should only verify that such reviews are performed and documented by the responsible parties.

Option C is incorrect because verifying management’s approval for this exemption is not sufficient to address the control process weakness. Even if there is a valid reason for not performing periodic reviews of read-only users, the IS auditor should still report this as a potential risk and recommend mitigating controls.

Option D is incorrect because obtaining a verbal confirmation from IT for this exemption is not adequate evidence or documentation. The IS auditor should obtain written approval from management and verify that it is aligned with the organization’s policies and standards.

Reviewing and evaluating application test cases is the most effective use of an IS auditor’s time during the evaluation of controls over a major application development project. Application test cases are designed to verify that the application meets the functional and non-functional requirements and specifications. They also help to identify and correct any errors, defects, or vulnerabilities in the application before it is deployed. By reviewing and evaluating the test cases, the IS auditor can assess the quality, reliability, security, and performance of the application and provide recommendations for improvement. 

The primary benefit of using a dry-pipe fire-suppression system rather than a wet-pipe system is that a dry-pipe system has a decreased risk of leakage, as the pipes are filled with pressurized air or nitrogen instead of water until the system is activated. A wet-pipe system has a higher risk of leakage, corrosion, and freezing. A dry-pipe system is not more effective at suppressing flames, as it uses the same water-based suppressant as a wet-pipe system. A dry-pipe system does not allow more time to abort release of the suppressant, as it has a delay of only a few seconds before the water is released. A dry-pipe system does not disperse dry chemical suppressants exclusively, as it uses water as the primary suppressant. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3

 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

The IS auditor’s best course of action in this situation is to present observations for discussion only. Observations are factual statements or findings that are based on the audit evidence collected and analyzed during the audit. Observations can be presented to management for discussion and feedback, but they should not be considered as final conclusions or recommendations until the audit is completed and the audit report is issued. The other options are not appropriate for presenting the findings to date, as they may compromise the audit quality or integrity. Reviewing working papers with the auditee is not advisable, as working papers are confidential documents that contain the auditor’s notes, calculations, and opinions that may not be relevant or accurate for management’s review. Requesting the auditee provide management responses is premature, as management responses should be obtained after the audit report is issued and the audit findings andrecommendations are finalized. Requesting management wait until a final report is ready for discussion is impractical, as management may have a legitimate interest or need to know the audit progress and results as soon as possible. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.3

Business processes should be the primary focus of an IS auditor when developing a risk-based IS audit program, because they represent the core activities and functions of the organization that support its objectives and goals. Business processes also involve the use of IT resources and systems that may pose risks to the organization’s performance and compliance. A risk-based IS audit program should identify and assess the risks associated with the business processes and determine the appropriate audit scope and procedures to provide assurance on their effectiveness and efficiency. Portfolio management, business plans, and IT strategic plans are also relevant factors for developing a risk-based IS audit program, but they are not as important as business processes. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1

 A top-down maturity model process is a method of assessing and improving the maturity level of a process or a set of processes within an organization. A maturity level is a measure of how well-defined, controlled, measured, and optimized a process is. A top-down maturity model process starts with defining the desired maturity level and then identifying the gaps and improvement opportunities for each process. This helps prioritize the processes that need the most attention and improvement. Therefore, a result of utilizing a top-down maturity model process is identification of processes with the most improvement opportunities.

A means of benchmarking the effectiveness of similar processes with peers, a means of comparing the effectiveness of other processes within the enterprise, and identification of older, more established processes to ensure timely review are not results of utilizing a top-down maturity model process. These are possible benefits or objectives of using other types of maturity models or assessment methods, but they are not specific to a top-down approach.

 A proper audit trail of changes to server start-up procedures would include evidence of operator overrides, which are actions taken by the system operator to bypass or modify the normal execution of the server start-up process. Operator overrides may indicate unauthorized or improper changes that could affect the security, availability, or performance of the server. Therefore, an audit trail should capture and document any operator overrides that occur during the server start-up process.

Evidence of subsystem structure, program execution, and security control options are not directly related to changes to server start-up procedures. Subsystem structure refers to the components and relationships of a subsystem within a larger system. Program execution refers to the process of running a software program on a computer. Security control options refer to the settings and parameters that define the security level and access rights for a system or application. These are all important aspects of auditing a server, but they do not provide evidence of changes to server start-up procedures.

 The most important thing to include in forensic data collection and preservation procedures is preserving data integrity. Data integrity is the property that ensures that data is accurate, complete, and consistent throughout its lifecycle. Preserving data integrity is essential for forensic data collection and preservation procedures because it ensures that the data can be used as valid and reliable evidence in legal proceedings or investigations. Preserving data integrity can be achieved by using methods such as hashing, checksums, digital signatures, write blockers, tamper-evident seals, or timestamps. The other options are not as important as preserving data integrity in forensic data collection and preservation procedures, as they do not affect the validity or reliability of the data. Assuring the physical security of devices is a security measure that protects devices from unauthorized access, theft, damage, or destruction, but it does not ensure that the data on the devices is accurate, complete, and consistent. Maintaining chain of custody is a documentation technique that records and tracks the handling and transfer of devices or data among different parties involved in forensic activities, but it does not ensure that the data on the devices is accurate, complete, and consistent. Determining tools to be used is a planning activity that selects and prepares the appropriate tools for forensic data collection and preservation procedures, but it does not ensure that the data collected and preserved by the tools is accurate, complete, and consistent. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.4

Controls to minimize risk and maximize value for the IT portfolio should be the most important consideration when conducting a review of IT portfolio management, because they ensure that the IT portfolio aligns with the business strategy, objectives, and priorities, and that the IT investments deliver optimal benefits and outcomes. Assignment of responsibility for each project to an IT team member, adherence to best practice and industry approved methodologies, and frequency of meetings where the business discusses the IT portfolio are also relevant aspects of IT portfolio management, but they are not asimportant as controls to minimize risk and maximize value. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version),Chapter 1, Section 1.2.3

The role within the RACI chart that would provide information on who has oversight of staff performing a specific task is accountable. A RACI chart is a matrix that defines and assigns the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders for a project, process, or activity. RACI stands for responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. Accountable is the role that has the authority and oversight to approve or reject the work done by the responsible role. The other options are not the roles that provide information on who has oversight of staff performing a specific task, as they have different meanings and functions. Consulted is the role that provides input or advice to the responsible or accountable roles. Informed is the role that receives updates or reports from the responsible or accountable roles. Responsible is the role that performs or executes the work or task. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.3

Reconciliation of total amounts by project is the best control to ensure that data is accurately entered into the job-costing system from spreadsheets. Reconciliation is a process of comparing two sets of data to identify any differences or discrepancies between them. By reconciling the total amounts by project from spreadsheets with those from the job-costing system, any errors or omissions in data entry can be detected and corrected. Validity checks are controls that verify that data conforms to predefined formats or ranges. They can prevent entry of character data into numeric fields, but they cannot ensure that the numeric data is correct or complete. Reasonableness checks are controls that verify that data is within expected or acceptable limits. They can detect outliers or anomalies in data, but they cannot ensure that the data matches the source. Display back of project detail after entry is a control that allows the user to review and confirm the data entered into the system. It can help reduce human errors, but it cannot guarantee that the data is accurate or consistent with the source. References: Information Systems Operations and Business Resilience, CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

 The primary concern when negotiating a contract for a hot site is the availability of the site in the event of multiple disaster declarations. A hot site is a fully equipped alternative facility that can be used to resume business operations in the event of a disaster. However, if multiple clients of the hot site provider declare a disaster at the same time, there may be a shortage of resources or capacity to accommodate all of them. Therefore, the contract should specify the terms and conditions for ensuring the availability and priority of the hot site for the organization. The other options are not as important as availability, as they do not affect the ability to use the hot site in a disaster situation. Coordination with the site staff in the event of multiple disaster declarations is a logistical issue that can be resolved by communication and planning. Reciprocal agreements with other organizations are alternative arrangements that can be used to share resources or facilities in a disaster, but they may not be as reliable or suitable as a hot site. Complete testing of the recovery plan is a good practice that can help validate and improve the effectiveness of the recovery plan, but it is not a concern for negotiating a contract for a hot site. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3

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