Isaca CISA Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 30

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.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 1: Information Systems Auditing Process, Section 1.2: Audit Planning.

In an online application, data architecture provides the most information about the transaction audit trail, as it describes how data are created, stored, processed, accessed and exchanged among different components of the application. Data architecture includes data models, schemas, dictionaries, metadata, standards and policies that define the structure, quality, integrity, security and governance of data. Data architecture can help the IS auditor to trace the origin, flow, transformation and destination of data in an online transaction, and to identify the key data elements, attributes and relationships that are relevant for audit purposes. A system/process flowchart is a graphical representation of the sequence of steps or activities that are performed by a system or process. A system/process flowchart can provide some information about the transaction audit trail, but it is not as detailed or comprehensive as data architecture. A system/process flowchart shows the inputs, outputs, decisions and actions of a system or process, but it does not show the data elements, attributes and relationships that are involved in each step or activity. A file layout is a specification of the format and structure of a data file. A file layout can provide some information about the transaction audit trail, but it is not as detailed or comprehensive as data architecture. A file layout shows the fields, types, lengths and positions of data in a file, but it does not show the origin, flow, transformation and destination of data in an online transaction. Source code documentation is a description of the logic, functionality and purpose of a program or module written in a programming language. Source code documentation can provide some information about the transaction audit trail, but it is not as detailed or comprehensive as data architecture.Source code documentation shows the instructions, variables and parameters that are used to perform calculations and operations on data, but it does not show the data elements, attributes and relationships that are involved in each instruction or operation.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 4: Information Systems Operations and Business Resilience, Section 4.2: Data Administration Practices.

Reviewing the last compile date of production programs is the most efficient way to detect unauthorized changes to production programs, as it can quickly identify any discrepancies between the expected and actual dates of program modification. The last compile date is a timestamp that indicates when a program was last compiled or translated from source code to executable code. Any changes to the source code would require a recompilation, which would update the last compile date. The IS auditor can compare the last compile date of production programs with the authorized change requests and reports to verify that only approved changes were implemented. The other options are not as efficient as option A, as they are more time-consuming, labor-intensive or error-prone. Manually comparing code in production programs to controlled copies is a method of verifying that the code in production matches the code in a secure repository or library, but it requires access to both versions of code and a tool or technique to compare them line by line. Periodically running and reviewing test data against production programs is a method of verifying that the programs produce the expected outputs and results, but it requires designing, executing and evaluating test cases for each program. Verifying user management approval of modifications is a method of verifying that the changes to production programs were authorized and documented, but it does not ensure that the changes were implemented correctly or accurately.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 4: Information Systems Operations and Business Resilience, Section 4.3: Change Management Practices.

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 the payment 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.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 5: Protection of Information Assets, Section 5.2: Logical Access.

A nondisclosure agreement (NDA) is the best way to protect an organization's proprietary code during a joint-development activity involving a third party. An NDA is a legal contract that binds the parties involved in a joint-development activity to keep confidential any information, data or materials that are shared or exchanged during the activity. An NDA specifies what constitutes confidential information, how it can be used, disclosed or protected, how long it remains confidential, what are the exceptions and remedies for breach of confidentiality, and other terms and conditions. An NDA can help to protect an organization's proprietary code from being copied, modified, distributed or exploited by unauthorized parties without its consent or knowledge. The other options are not as effective as option B, as they do not address confidentiality issues specifically. A statement of work (SOW) is a document that defines the scope, objectives, deliverables, tasks, roles, responsibilities, timelines and costs of a joint-development activity, but it does not cover confidentiality issues explicitly. A service level agreement (SLA) is a document that defines the quality, performance and availability standards and metrics for a service provided by one party to another party in a joint-development activity, but it does not cover confidentiality issues explicitly. A privacy agreement is a document that defines how personal information collected from customers or users is collected, used, disclosed and protected by one party or both parties in a joint-development activity, but it does not cover confidentiality issues related to proprietary code.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 3: Information Systems Acquisition, Development & Implementation, Section 3.2: Project Management Practices.

Team member assignments based on individual competencies is the most important factor to meet the IS audit standard for proficiency. Proficiency is the ability to apply knowledge, skills and experience to perform audit tasks effectively and efficiently. The IS audit standard for proficiency requires that IS auditors must possess the knowledge, skills and discipline to perform audit tasks in accordance with applicable standards, guidelines and procedures. Team member assignments based on individual competencies is a way to ensure that each IS auditor is assigned to audit tasks that match their level of proficiency, and that the audit team as a whole has sufficient and appropriate proficiency to conduct the audit. The other options are not as important as option C, as they do not ensure that the IS auditors have the required proficiency to perform audit tasks. Having a globally recognized audit certification is a way to demonstrate proficiency in IS auditing, but it does not guarantee that the IS auditor has the specific knowledge, skills and experience needed for a particular audit task or system. Technical co-sourcing is a way to supplement the proficiency of the IS audit team by hiring external experts or consultants to perform certain audit tasks or functions, but it does not replace the need for internal IS auditors to have adequate proficiency. Having a supervisor review the new auditors' work is a way to ensure quality and accuracy of the audit work, but it does not ensure that the new auditors have the necessary proficiency to perform audit tasks independently or competently.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 1: Information Systems Auditing Process, Section 1.4: Audit Skills and Competencies.

Determining accountability of data owners is the most important activity in the data classification process. Data classification is a process that assigns categories or labels to data based on their value, sensitivity, criticality and risk to the organization. Data classification helps to determine the appropriate level of protection, access and retention for data. Determining accountability of data owners is an activity that identifies and assigns roles and responsibilities for data classification, protection and management to individuals or functions within the organization. Data owners are individuals or functions who have authority and responsibility for defining, classifying, protecting and managing data throughout their lifecycle. Determining accountability of data owners is essential for ensuring that data are classified correctly and consistently, and that data classification policies and procedures are followed and enforced. The other options are not as important as option C, as they are dependent on or derived from the accountability of data owners. Labeling the data appropriately is an activity that applies the categories or labels assigned by data owners to data based on their classification criteria. Identifying risk associated with the data is an activity that assesses the potential impact and likelihood of loss, disclosure, modification or destruction of data based on their classification level. Determining the adequacy of privacy controls is an activity that evaluates whether the controls implemented to protect personal or sensitive data are sufficient and effective based on their classification level.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 5: Protection of Information Assets, Section 5.3: Data Classification.

According to the ISACA's Information Security Governance Guidance for Boards of Directors and Executive Management, the highest level of maturity of an information security program is Level 5: Optimized, which means that the program is aligned with the business objectives and strategy, and continuously monitors and improves its performance and effectiveness. A framework is in place to measure risks and track effectiveness, and the program is proactive, adaptive, and innovative.

The other options represent lower levels of maturity:

A training program is in place to promote information security awareness. This is Level 2: Repeatable, which means that the program has some basic policies and procedures, and provides awareness training to employees.

Information security policies and procedures are established. This is Level 3: Defined, which means that the program has formalized policies and procedures, and assigns roles and responsibilities for information security.

The program meets regulatory and compliance requirements. This is Level 4: Managed, which means that the program has established metrics and reporting mechanisms, and complies with relevant laws and regulations.

The IS auditor should be most concerned about the lack of follow-up education for staff members who failed the phishing simulation test. Phishing simulation tests are designed to assess the level of awareness and susceptibility of staff members to phishing attacks, and to provide feedback and training to improve their security behavior. If staff members who failed the test do not receive follow-up education, they will not learn from their mistakes and may continue to fall victim to real phishing attacks, which could compromise the security of the organization.

The other options are less concerning for the IS auditor:

Test results were not communicated to staff members. This is not ideal, as staff members should receive feedback on their performance and learn from the test results. However, this does not necessarily mean that they did not receive any training or education on how to avoid phishing attacks.

Staff members were not notified about the test beforehand. This is a common practice for phishing simulation tests, as it mimics the real-world scenario where staff members do not know when they will receive a phishing email. The purpose of the test is to measure their spontaneous reaction and awareness, not their preparedness or compliance.

Security awareness training was not provided prior to the test. This is not a major concern, as the test can serve as a baseline measurement of the current level of awareness and susceptibility of staff members, and as a starting point for providing tailored training and education based on the test results.