Isaca CISA Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 13

The best compensating control when segregation of duties is lacking in a small IS department is transaction log review. Transaction log review can help detect any unauthorized or fraudulent activities performed by IS staff who have access to multiple functions or systems. Transaction log review can also provide an audit trail for accountability and investigation purposes. The other options are not as effective as transaction log review in compensating for the lack of segregation of duties. Background checks are preventive controls that can help screen potential employees for any criminal records or dishonest behavior, but they do not prevent existing employees from abusing their access privileges. User awareness training is a detective control that can help educate users on how to report any suspicious or abnormal activities in the IS environment, but it does not monitor or verify the actions of IS staff. Mandatory holidays are deterrent controls that can discourage IS staff from engaging in fraudulent activities by requiring them to take periodic leave, but they do not prevent or detect such activities when they occur.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

The best indicator of whether a PIR performed by the PMO was effective is whether project outcomes have been realized. Project outcomes are the benefits or value that a project delivers to its stakeholders, such as improved efficiency, quality, customer satisfaction, or revenue. A PIR should evaluate whether project outcomes have been achieved in accordance with project objectives, scope, budget, and schedule. The other options are not as good as project outcomes in determining the effectiveness of a PIR. Lessons learned are valuable inputs for improving future projects, but they do not measure whether project outcomes have been realized. Management approval of the PIR report is a sign of acceptance and support for the PIR findings and recommendations, but it does not reflect whether project outcomes have been achieved. The review performed by an external provider is a way of ensuring objectivity and independence for the PIR, but it does not guarantee whether project outcomes have been realized.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.3

The most important thing for an IS auditor to examine when reviewing an organization's privacy policy is its legitimate purpose for collecting personal data. A legitimate purpose is a clear and specific reason for collecting personal data that is necessary for the organization's business operations or legal obligations, and that respects the rights and interests of the data subjects. A legitimate purpose is the basis for establishing a lawful and fair processing of personal data, and it should be communicated to the data subjects in the privacy policy. The other options are not as important as the legitimate purpose in reviewing the privacy policy. Explicit permission from regulators to collect personal data is not always required, as there may be other lawful bases for data collection, such as consent, contract, or public interest. Sharing of personal information with third-party service providers is not prohibited, as long as there are adequate safeguards and agreements in place to protect the data. The encryption mechanism selected by the organization for protecting personal data is a technical control that can enhance data security, but it does not determine the legality or fairness of data collection.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2

The greatest concern associated with a high number of IT policy exceptions approved by management is that the exceptions may result in noncompliance. IT policy exceptions are deviations from the established IT policies that are granted by management for specific reasons and circumstances. However, if there are too many exceptions, it may indicate that the IT policies are not aligned with the business needs, regulatory requirements, or best practices. This may expose the organization to legal, contractual, or reputational risks due to noncompliance. The other options are not as concerning as noncompliance, as they do not have the same potential impact or consequences. The exceptions are likely to continue indefinitely is a possible outcome of a high number of exceptions, but it does not necessarily imply a negative effect on the organization. The exceptions may elevate the level of operational risk is a valid concern, but it can be mitigated by implementing compensating controls or monitoring mechanisms. The exceptions may negatively impact process efficiency is a minor concern, as it does not affect the effectiveness or reliability of the IT processes.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

The project manager should be accountable for managing the risks to project benefits. Project benefits are the expected outcomes or value that a project delivers to its stakeholders, such as improved efficiency, quality, customer satisfaction, or revenue. Project risks are uncertain events or conditions that may affect the project objectives, scope, budget, schedule, or quality. The project manager is responsible for identifying, analyzing, prioritizing, responding to, and monitoring project risks throughout the project life cycle. The other options are not accountable for managing project risks, as they have different roles and responsibilities. The enterprise risk manager is responsible for overseeing the organization's overall risk management framework and strategy, but not for managing specific project risks. The project sponsor is responsible for initiating, approving, and supporting the project, but not for managing project risks. The information security officer is responsible for ensuring that the project complies with the organization's information security policies and standards, but not for managing project risks.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.3

The most effective method to verify that a service vendor keeps control levels as required by the client is to conduct periodic on-site assessments using agreed-upon criteria. On-site assessments can provide direct evidence of whether the vendor's controls are operating effectively and consistently in accordance with the client's expectations and requirements. Agreed-upon criteria can ensure that the assessments are objective, relevant, and reliable. The other options are not as effective as on-site assessments in verifying the vendor's control levels. Periodically reviewing the SLA with the vendor can help monitor whether the vendor meets its contractual obligations and service standards, but it does not provide assurance of whether the vendor's controls are adequate or sufficient. Conducting an unannounced vulnerability assessment of vendor's IT systems can help identify any weaknesses or gaps in the vendor's security controls, but it may violate the terms and conditions of the vendor-client relationship or cause operational disruptions. Obtaining evidence of the vendor's CSA can provide some indication of whether the vendor's controls are self-monitored and reported, but it does not verify whether the vendor's controls are independent or accurate.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.4

The IS auditor's best course of action in this situation is to determine whether the alternative controls sufficiently mitigate the risk. Alternative controls are different from those originally discussed and agreed with the audit function, but they may still achieve the same objective of addressing the audit issue or reducing the risk to an acceptable level. The IS auditor should evaluate whether the alternative controls are appropriate, effective, and sustainable before closing the audit finding or escalating it to senior management. The other options are not appropriate for resolving this situation, as they do not consider whether the alternative controls are adequate or reasonable. Re-prioritizing the original issue as high risk and escalating to senior management 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. Scheduling a follow-up audit in the next audit cycle is unnecessary, as follow-up activities should be performed as soon as possible after management has implemented corrective actions. Postponing follow-up activities and escalating the alternative controls to senior audit management is premature, as follow-up activities should be completed before reporting any findings or recommendations to senior audit management.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.4

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 and recommendations 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.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.3

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.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3