Isaca CISA Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 45

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.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2

The best way to provide assurance of the integrity of a firewall log is to ensure that the log cannot be modified. A firewall log is a record of the traffic and events that occur at the firewall, which is a device or software that controls and filters the incoming and outgoing network traffic based on predefined rules and policies. The integrity of a firewall log means that the log is accurate, complete, consistent, and valid, and that it has not been altered, deleted, or corrupted by unauthorized or malicious parties. The IS auditor should verify that the firewall log has adequate controls to prevent or detect any modification of the log, such as encryption, hashing, digital signatures, write-once media, or tamper-evident seals.The other options are not as effective as ensuring that the log cannot be modified, because they either do not address the integrity of the log data, or they are monitoring or retention measures rather than preventive or detective controls.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4

The best recommendation to include in an organization's bring your own device (BYOD) policy to help prevent data leakage is to require multi-factor authentication on BYOD devices. BYOD is a practice that allows employees to use their own personal devices, such as smartphones, tablets, or laptops, to access the organization's network, data, and systems. Data leakage is a risk that involves the unauthorized or accidental disclosure or transfer of sensitive or confidential data from the organization to external parties or devices. Multi-factor authentication is a security measure that requires users to provide two or more pieces of evidence to verify their identity and access rights, such as passwords, tokens, biometrics, or codes. Multi-factor authentication can help prevent data leakage by reducing the likelihood of unauthorized access to the organization's data and systems through BYOD devices, especially if they are lost, stolen, or compromised.The other options are not as effective as requiring multi-factor authentication on BYOD devices, because they either do not prevent data leakage directly, or they are reactive rather than proactive measures.Reference:CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3

A digital signature is the most appropriate control to ensure integrity of online orders because it provides a way to verify the authenticity and integrity of the data sent by the sender. A digital signature is created by applying a cryptographic algorithm to the data and attaching the result to the data. The receiver can then use the sender's public key to verify that the data has not been altered or tampered with during transmission. A digital signature also provides non-repudiation, which means that the sender cannot deny sending the data.

Data Encryption Standard (DES) is a symmetric encryption algorithm that can provide confidentiality of online orders, but not integrity. DES uses the same key to encrypt and decrypt the data, which means that anyone who has the key can modify the data without detection.

Public key encryption is an asymmetric encryption algorithm that can also provide confidentiality of online orders, but not integrity. Public key encryption uses a pair of keys: a public key and a private key. The sender encrypts the data with the receiver's public key, and the receiver decrypts it with their own private key. However, public key encryption does not prevent anyone from modifying the encrypted data.

Multi-factor authentication is a control that can provide authentication and authorization of online orders, but not integrity. Multi-factor authentication requires the user to provide two or more pieces of evidence to prove their identity, such as a password, a token, or a biometric factor. Multi-factor authentication can prevent unauthorized access to online orders, but it does not protect the data from being modified after being sent.

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2019, p.2811

ISACA, CISA Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription2

An audit report of the controls by the service provider's external auditor provides the best evidence that a third-party service provider's information security controls are effective. An external auditor is an independent and objective party that can assess the design and operating effectiveness of the service provider's information security controls based on established standards and criteria. An external auditor can also provide an opinion on the adequacy and compliance of the service provider's information security controls, as well as recommendations for improvement.

Documentation of the service provider's security configuration controls is a source of evidence that a third-party service provider's information security controls are effective, but it is not the best evidence. Documentation of the security configuration controls can show the settings and parameters of the service provider's information systems and networks, but it may not reflect the actual implementation and operation of the controls. Documentation of the security configuration controls may also be outdated, incomplete, or inaccurate.

An interview with the service provider's information security officer is a source of evidence that a third-party service provider's information security controls are effective, but it is not the best evidence. An interview with the information security officer can provide insights into the service provider's information security strategy, policies, and procedures, but it may not verify the actual performance and compliance of the information security controls. An interview with the information security officer may also be biased, subjective, or misleading.

A review of the service provider's policies and procedures is a source of evidence that a third-party service provider's information security controls are effective, but it is not the best evidence. A review of the policies and procedures can show the service provider's information security objectives, requirements, and guidelines, but it may not demonstrate the actual execution and enforcement of the information security controls. A review of the policies and procedures may also be insufficient, inconsistent, or outdated.

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2019, p. 284

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

The most effective way to identify exfiltration of sensitive data by a malicious insider is to establish behavioral analytics monitoring. Behavioral analytics is the process of analyzing the patterns and anomalies in user behavior to detect and prevent insider threats. Behavioral analytics can help identify unusual or suspicious activities, such as accessing sensitive data at odd hours, transferring large amounts of data to external devices or locations, or using unauthorized applications or protocols. Behavioral analytics can also help correlate data from multiple sources, such as network logs, user profiles, and access rights, to provide a holistic view of user activity and risk.

Data loss prevention (DLP) software is a tool that can help prevent exfiltration of sensitive data by a malicious insider, but it is not the most effective way to identify it. DLP software can block or alert on unauthorized data transfers based on predefined rules and policies, but it may not be able to detect sophisticated or stealthy exfiltration techniques, such as encryption, steganography, or data obfuscation.

Reviewing perimeter firewall logs is a way to identify exfiltration of sensitive data by a malicious insider, but it is not the most effective way. Perimeter firewall logs can show the traffic volume and destination of data transfers, but they may not be able to show the content or context of the data. Perimeter firewall logs may also be overwhelmed by the amount of normal traffic and miss the signals of malicious exfiltration.

Providing ongoing information security awareness training is a way to reduce the risk of exfiltration of sensitive data by a malicious insider, but it is not a way to identify it. Information security awareness training can help educate users on the importance of protecting sensitive data and the consequences of violating policies and regulations, but it may not deter or detect those who are intentionally or maliciously exfiltrating data.

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2019, p. 300

ISACA, CISA Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription1

Cybersecurity Engineering for Legacy Systems: 6 Recommendations - SEI Blog2

How to Secure Your Company's Legacy Applications - iCorps

The best way for the auditor to address this issue is to verify management has approved a policy exception to accept the risk. A policy exception is a formal authorization that allows a deviation from the established policy requirements for a specific situation or period of time. A policy exception should be based on a risk assessment that evaluates the impact and likelihood of the potential threats and vulnerabilities, as well as the cost and benefit of the alternative controls. A policy exception should also be documented, approved, and monitored by management.

Recommending the application be patched to meet requirements is not the best way for the auditor to address this issue. Patching the application may not be feasible, cost-effective, or timely, given that the application will be decommissioned in three months. Patching the application may also introduce new risks or errors that could affect the functionality or performance of the application.

Informing the IT director of the policy noncompliance is not the best way for the auditor to address this issue. Informing the IT director of the policy noncompliance may not resolve the issue or mitigate the risk, especially if the IT director is already aware of the situation and has decided to accept it. Informing the IT director of the policy noncompliance may also create unnecessary conflict or tension between the auditor and the auditee.

Taking no action since the application will be decommissioned in three months is not the best way for the auditor to address this issue. Taking no action may expose the organization to significant risks or consequences, such as data breaches, regulatory fines, or reputational damage, if the application is compromised or exploited by malicious actors. Taking no action may also violate the auditor's professional standards and responsibilities, such as due care, objectivity, and reporting.

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2019, p. 289

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

Cybersecurity Engineering for Legacy Systems: 6 Recommendations - SEI Blog

How to Secure Your Company's Legacy Applications - iCorps

: An IS auditor reviewing the threat assessment for a data center would be most concerned if all identified threats relate to external entities. This indicates that the threat assessment is incomplete and biased, as it ignores the potential threats from internal sources, such as employees, contractors, vendors, or authorized visitors. Internal threats can pose significant risks to the data center, as they may have access to sensitive information, systems, or facilities, and may exploit their privileges for malicious or fraudulent purposes.According to a study by IBM, 60% of cyberattacks in 2015 were carried out by insiders1

Some of the identified threats are unlikely to occur is not a cause for concern, as it shows that the threat assessment is comprehensive and realistic, and considers all possible scenarios, regardless of their probability. A threat assessment should not exclude any potential threats based on subjective judgments or assumptions, as they may still have a high impact if they materialize.

The exercise was completed by local management is not a cause for concern, as it shows that the threat assessment is conducted by the people who are most familiar with the data center's operations, environment, and risks. Local management may have more relevant and accurate information and insights than external parties, and may be more invested in the outcome of the threat assessment.

Neighboring organizations' operations have been included is not a cause for concern, as it shows that the threat assessment is holistic and contextual, and considers the interdependencies and influences of external factors on the data center's security. Neighboring organizations' operations may pose direct or indirect threats to the data center, such as physical damage, network interference, or shared vulnerabilities.

IBM Security Services 2016 Cyber Security Intelligence Index1

This means that the IT investments are aligned with the strategic goals and priorities of the organization, and that they deliver value and benefits to the business. Mapping IT investments to specific business objectives can help ensure that the IT investments are relevant, justified, and measurable, and that they support the organization's mission and vision.

IT investments are implemented and monitored following a system development life cycle (SDLC) is an indication of effective IT project management, but not necessarily of effective IT investment management. The SDLC is a framework that guides the development and implementation of IT systems and applications, but it does not address the alignment, justification, or measurement of the IT investments.

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are defined for each business requiring IT investment is an indication of effective IT performance management, but not necessarily of effective IT investment management. KPIs are metrics that measure the outcomes and results of IT activities and processes, but they do not address the alignment, justification, or value of the IT investments.

The IT investment budget is significantly below industry benchmarks is not an indication of effective IT investment management, but rather of low IT spending. The IT investment budget should be based on the organization's needs and capabilities, and not on external comparisons. A low IT investment budget may indicate that the organization is underinvesting in IT, which could limit its potential for growth and innovation.