Isaca CISA Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 38

The primary purpose of documenting audit objectives when preparing for an engagement is to identify areas with relatively high probability of material problems. Audit objectives are statements that describe what the audit intends to accomplish or verify during the engagement. Audit objectives help the IS auditor to focus on the key areas of risk or concern, to design appropriate audit procedures and tests, and to evaluate audit evidence and results. By documenting audit objectives, the IS auditor can identify areas with relatively high probability of material problems that may affect the achievement of audit goals or business objectives. Addressing the overall risk associated with the activity under review, ensuring maximum use of audit resources during the engagement and prioritizing and scheduling auditee meetings are also purposes of documenting audit objectives, but they are not as primary as identifying areas with high probability of material problems.Reference:

CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 1111

CISA Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription

The first step in the incident response process for a suspected breach is to research the validity of the alerted breach. An incident response process is a set of procedures that defines how to handle security incidents in a timely and effective manner. The first step in this process is to research the validity of the alerted breach, which means to verify whether the alert is genuine or false positive, to determine the scope and impact of the incident, and to gather relevant information for further analysis and action. Informing potentially affected customers of the security breach, notifying business management of the security breach, and engaging a third party to independently evaluate the alerted breach are also steps in the incident response process, but they are not the first step.Reference:

CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 4251

CISA Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription

A system electronic log is the most useful source of information for an IS auditor to review all access attempts to a video-monitored and proximity card-controlled communications room. A system electronic log can provide accurate and detailed records of the date, time, card number, and status (success or failure) of each access attempt. A system electronic log can also be easily searched, filtered, and analyzed by the auditor to identify any unauthorized or suspicious access attempts.

A manual sign-in and sign-out log is not as reliable or useful as a system electronic log, because it depends on the honesty and compliance of the users. A manual log can be easily manipulated, forged, or omitted by the users or intruders. A manual log also does not capture the status of each access attempt, and it can be difficult to verify the identity of the users based on their signatures.

An alarm system with CCTV is not as useful as a system electronic log, because it only captures the events that trigger the alarm, such as unauthorized or forced entry. An alarm system with CCTV does not provide a complete record of all access attempts, and it can be affected by factors such as camera angle, lighting, and resolution. An alarm system with CCTV also requires more time and effort to review the video footage by the auditor.

A security incident log is not as useful as a system electronic log, because it only records the incidents that are reported by the users or detected by the security staff. A security incident log does not provide a comprehensive record of all access attempts, and it can be incomplete or inaccurate depending on the reporting and detection mechanisms. A security incident log also does not capture the details of each access attempt, such as the card number and status.

ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition (2019), page 247

ISACA CISA Certified Information Systems Auditor Exam ... - PUPUWEB

The first step when developing a data loss prevention (DLP) solution for a large organization is to conduct a data inventory and classification exercise. This step is essential to identify the types, locations, owners, and sensitivity levels of the data that need to be protected by the DLP solution. A data inventory and classification exercise helps to define the scope, objectives, and requirements of the DLP solution, as well as to prioritize the data protection efforts based on the business value and risk of the data. A data inventory and classification exercise also enables the organization to comply with relevant laws and regulations regarding data privacy and security.

The other options are not the first step when developing a DLP solution, but rather subsequent steps that depend on the outcome of the data inventory and classification exercise. Identifying approved data workflows across the enterprise is a step that helps to design and implement the DLP policies and controls that match the business processes and data flows. Conducting a threat analysis against sensitive data usage is a step that helps to assess and mitigate the risks associated with data leakage, theft, or misuse. Creating the DLP policies and templates is a step that helps to enforce the data protection rules and standards across the organization.

ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition (2019), page 247

Data Loss Prevention---Next Steps - ISACA1

What is data loss prevention (DLP)?| Microsoft Security

The major concern with the situation where security incidents are resolved and closed, but root causes are not investigated, is that vulnerabilities have not been properly addressed. Vulnerabilities are weaknesses or gaps in the security posture of an organization that can be exploited by threat actors to compromise its systems, data, or operations. If root causes are not investigated, vulnerabilities may remain undetected or unresolved, allowing attackers to exploit them again or use them as entry points for further attacks. This can result in repeated or escalated security incidents that can cause more damage or disruption to the organization.

The other options are not as major as the concern about vulnerabilities, but rather secondary or related issues that may arise from the lack of root cause analysis. Abuses by employees have not been reported is a concern that may indicate a lack of awareness, accountability, or monitoring of insider threats. Lessons learned have not been properly documented is a concern that may indicate a lack of improvement, learning, or feedback from security incidents. Security incident policies are out of date is a concern that may indicate a lack of alignment, review, or update of security incident processes.

ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition (2019), page 254

Why Root Cause Analysis is Crucial to Incident Response (IR) - Avertium3

Root Cause Analysis Steps and How it Helps Incident Response ...

The most conclusive audit procedure for evaluating the effectiveness of an e-commerce application system's edit routine is to use test transactions.A test transaction is a simulated input that is processed by the system to verify its output and performance1. By using test transactions, an auditor can directly observe how the edit routine checks the validity, accuracy, and completeness of data entered by users, and how it handles incorrect or invalid data. A test transaction can also help measure the efficiency, reliability, and security of the edit routine, as well as identify any errors or weaknesses in the system.

The other options are not as conclusive as using test transactions, as they rely on indirect or secondary sources of information.Reviewing program documentation is an audit procedure that involves examining the written description of the system's design, specifications, and functionality2. However, program documentation may not reflect the actual implementation or operation of the system, and it may not reveal any discrepancies or defects in the edit routine.Interviews with knowledgeable users is an audit procedure that involves asking questions to the people who use or manage the system3. However, interviews with knowledgeable users may not provide sufficient or objective evidence of the edit routine's effectiveness, and they may be influenced by personal opinions or biases.Reviewing source code is an audit procedure that involves analyzing the programming language and logic of the system4. However, reviewing source code may not be feasible or practical for complex or large systems, and it may not demonstrate how the edit routine performs in real scenarios.

Asset life cycle management is a technique of asset management where facility managers maximize the usable life of assets through planning, purchasing, using, maintaining, and disposing of assets1.The main aim of asset life cycle management is to reduce costs and increase productivity by optimizing the performance, reliability, and lifespan of assets2.Asset life cycle management can help prevent the situation of having unused applications by ensuring that the applications are aligned with the business needs, objectives, and strategies, and that they are regularly reviewed, updated, or retired as necessary3.

The other options are not as effective as asset life cycle management for preventing unused applications. A formal request for proposal (RFP) process is a method of soliciting bids from potential vendors or suppliers for a project or service. A RFP process can help select the best application for a specific requirement, but it does not ensure that the application will be used or maintained throughout its lifecycle. Business case development procedures are a set of steps that involve defining the problem, analyzing the alternatives, and proposing a solution for a project or initiative. Business case development procedures can help justify the need and value of an application, but they do not guarantee that the application will be utilized or supported after its implementation. An information asset acquisition policy is a document that outlines the rules and standards for acquiring information assets such as applications. An information asset acquisition policy can help ensure that the applications are acquired in a consistent and compliant manner, but it does not address how the applications will be managed or disposed of after their acquisition.

The most critical finding for an IS auditor following up on a recent security incident is that the security weakness facilitating the attack was not identified. This finding indicates that the root cause of the incident was not analyzed, and the vulnerability that allowed the attack to succeed was not remediated. This means that the organization is still exposed to the same or similar attacks in the future, and its security posture has not improved. Identifying and addressing the security weakness is a key step in the incident response process, as it helps to prevent recurrence, mitigate impact, and improve resilience.

The other findings are not as critical as the failure to identify the security weakness, but they are still important issues that should be addressed by the organization. The attack was not automatically blocked by the intrusion detection system (IDS) is a finding that suggests that the IDS was not configured properly, or that it did not have the latest signatures or rules to detect and prevent the attack. The attack could not be traced back to the originating person is a finding that implies that the organization did not have sufficient logging, monitoring, or forensic capabilities to identify and attribute the attacker. Appropriate response documentation was not maintained is a finding that indicates that the organization did not follow a consistent and formal incident response procedure, or that it did not document its actions, decisions, and lessons learned from the incident.

ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition (2019), page 254

Incident Response Process - ISACA1

Incident Response: How to Identify and Fix Security Weaknesses

In a controlled application development environment, the most important segregation of duties should be between the person who implements changes into the production environment and the application programmer. This segregation of duties ensures that no one person can create and deploy code without proper review, testing, and approval. This reduces the risk of errors, fraud, or malicious code being introduced into the production environment.

The other options are not as important as the segregation between the application programmer and the person who implements changes into production, but they are still relevant for achieving a secure and reliable application development environment. The segregation of duties between the person who implements changes into production and the systems programmer is important to prevent unauthorized or untested changes to system software or configuration. The segregation of duties between the person who implements changes into production and the computer operator is important to prevent unauthorized or uncontrolled access to production data or resources. The segregation of duties between the person who implements changes into production and the quality assurance (QA) personnel is important to ensure independent verification and validation of code quality and functionality.

ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition (2019), page 247

Segregation of Duties in an Agile Environment | AKF Partners3

Separation of Duties: How to Conform in a DevOps World4