CISA Exam Dumps - Certified Information Systems Auditor

The best recommendation for the IS auditor to facilitate compliance with the new regulation is to include the requirement in the incident management response plan. An incident management response plan is a document that defines the roles, responsibilities, processes, and procedures for responding to security incidents. By including the new regulation in the plan, the IS auditor can ensure that the organization is aware of the reporting obligation, has a clear workflow for notifying the regulator within 24 hours, and has the necessary documentation and evidence to support the report.

The other options are not as effective as including the requirement in the incident management response plan:

Establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) for timely identification of security incidents is a good practice, but it does not guarantee compliance with the regulation. KPIs are metrics that measure the performance of a process or activity, but they do not specify how to perform it. The IS auditor should also provide guidance on how to identify and report security incidents within 24 hours.

Engaging an external security incident response expert for incident handling is a possible option, but it may not be feasible or cost-effective. The organization may not have the budget or time to hire an external expert, or may prefer to handle the incidents internally. The IS auditor should also evaluate the qualifications and trustworthiness of the external expert, and ensure that they comply with the regulation and other contractual or legal obligations.

Enhancing the alert functionality of the intrusion detection system (IDS) is a useful measure, but it is not sufficient to comply with the regulation. An IDS is a tool that monitors network traffic for malicious activity and alerts the network administrator or takes preventive action. However, an IDS may not detect all types of security incidents, or may generate false positivesor negatives. The IS auditor should also consider other sources of incident detection, such as logs, reports, audits, or user feedback.

When reviewing a data classification scheme, it is most important for an IS auditor to determine if the security criteria are clearly documented for each classification. This will help the IS auditor to evaluate if the data classification scheme is consistent, comprehensive, and aligned with the organizational objectives and regulatory requirements. The security criteria should define the level of confidentiality,integrity, and availability for each data classification, aswell as the corresponding controls such as access control, rights management, and cryptographic protection1. The other options are less important or incorrect because:

A. Each information asset is not necessarily assigned to a different classification. Data classification schemesusually have a limited number of categories, such as “Sensitive,” “Confidential,” and “Public,” and multiple information assets can belong to the same category2.

C. Senior IT managers are not necessarily identified as information owners. Information owners are typically the business units or functions that create, use, or maintain the information assets, and they may or may not be senior IT managers3.

D. The information owner is not required to approve access to the asset. The information owner is responsible for defining the access requirements and rules for the asset, but the actual approval of access requests may be delegated to other roles, such as data custodians or administrators3. References: Simplify and Contextualize Your Data Classification Efforts - ISACA, 3.7: Establish and Maintain a Data Classification Scheme, Data Classification and Practices - NIST, CISA Exam Content Outline |CISA Certification | ISACA

 The IS auditor’s primary focus when evaluating an organization’s offsite storage facility should be the adequacy of physical and environmental controls. Physical and environmental controls are essential to protect the offsite storage facility from unauthorized access, theft, fire, water damage, pests or other hazards that could compromise the integrity and availability of backup media. Shared facilities is something that the IS auditor should consider when evaluating the offsite storage facility, but it is not the primary focus. Results of business continuity plan (BCP) test or retention policy and period are things that the IS auditor should review when evaluating the organization’s BCP or backup strategy, not the offsite storage facility itself. References: ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2018, page 388

 The most important thing for an IS auditor to look for in a project feasibility study is an assessment of whether the expected benefits can be achieved. A project feasibility study is a preliminary analysis that evaluates the viability and suitability of a proposed project based on various criteria, such as technical, economic, legal, operational, and social factors. The expected benefits are the positive outcomes and value that the project aims to deliver to the organization and its stakeholders. The IS auditor should verify whether the project feasibility study has clearly defined and quantified the expected benefits, and whether it has assessed the likelihood and feasibility of achieving them within the project scope, budget, schedule, and quality parameters. The other options are also important for an IS auditor to look for in a project feasibility study, but not as important as an assessment of whether the expected benefits can be achieved, because they either focus on specific aspects of the project rather than the overall value proposition, or they assume that the project will be implemented rather than evaluating its viability. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1

 A corrective control is a control that aims to restore normal operations after a disruption or incident has occurred. Executing emergency response plans is an example of a corrective control, as it helps to mitigate the impact of an incident and resume business functions. Separating equipment development testing and production is a preventive control, as it helps to avoid errors or unauthorized changes in production systems. Verifying duplicate calculations in data processing is a detective control, as it helps to identify errors or anomalies in data processing. Reviewing user access rights for segregation is also a detective control, as it helps to detect any violations of segregation of duties principles. References: ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2018, page 64

The greatest concern that the IS auditor should have when reviewing an organization’s security information and event management (SIEM) solution is that the SIEM is decentralized. This is because a decentralized SIEM can pose challenges for collecting, correlating, analyzing and reporting on security events and incidents from multiple sources and locations. A decentralized SIEM can also increase the complexity and cost of maintaining and updating the SIEM components, as well as the risk of inconsistent or incomplete security monitoring and response. The IS auditor should recommend that the organization adopts a centralized or hybrid SIEM architecture that can provide a holistic and integrated view of the security posture and activities across the organization. The other findings are not as concerning as a decentralized SIEM, because they can be addressedby implementing best practices and standards for SIEM reporting and configuration. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4

The best method to determine if IT resource spending is aligned with planned project spending is earned value analysis (EVA). EVA is a technique that compares the actual cost, schedule, and scope of a project with the planned or budgeted values. EVA can help to measure the project progress and performance, and identify any variances or deviations from the baseline plan1.

EVA uses three basic values to calculate the project status: planned value (PV), earned value (EV), and actual cost (AC). PV is the amount of work that was expected to be completed by a certain date, according to the project plan. EV is the amount of work that was actually completed by that date,measured in terms of the budgeted cost. AC is the amount of money that was actually spent to complete the work by that date1.

By comparing these values, EVA can determine if the project is on track, ahead, or behind schedule and budget. EVA can also calculate various indicators, such as cost variance (CV), schedule variance (SV), cost performance index (CPI), and schedule performance index (SPI), to quantify the magnitude and direction of the variances. EVA can also forecast the future performanceand completion of the project, based on the current trends and assumptions1.

The other options are not as effective as EVA in determining if IT resource spending is aligned with planned project spending. Option B, return on investment (ROI) analysis, is a technique that evaluates the profitability or efficiency of an investment, by comparing the benefits or revenues with the costs. ROI analysis can help to justify or prioritize a project, but it does not measure the actual progress or performance of the project against the plan2. Option C, Gantt chart, is a tool that displays the tasks, durations, dependencies, and milestones of a project in a graphical format. Gantt chart can help to plan and monitor a project schedule, but it does not show the actual cost or scope of the project3. Option D, critical path analysis, is a technique that identifies the longest sequence of tasks or activities that must be completed on time for the project to finish on schedule. Critical path analysis can help to optimize and control a project schedule, but it does not account for the actual cost or scope of the project4.

References:

Earned Value Analysis & Management (EVA/EVM) – Definition& Formulae1

Return on Investment (ROI) Formula2

What Is a Gantt Chart?3

Critical Path Method for Project Management

The primary role of a control self-assessment (CSA) facilitator is to focus the team on internal controls. A CSA facilitator is a person who guides the CSA process and helps the participants to identify, assess, and improve their internal controls. The facilitator does not conduct interviews, report on weaknesses, or provide solutions, as these are the responsibilities of the participants themselves1.

The other options are incorrect because they are not the primary role of a CSA facilitator. Option A, conduct interviews to gain background information, is a preliminary step that may be done by the facilitator or the participants before the CSA session, but it is not the main purpose of the facilitator. Option C, report on the internal control weaknesses, is an outcome of the CSA process that should be done by the participants who own and operate the controls. Option D, provide solutions for control weaknesses, is also an outcome of the CSA process that should be done by the participants who are in charge of implementing the improvements.

References:

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2019, page 2822

ISACA, CISA Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription, QID 1066693

PwC, Control Self Assessments4

Workiva, 4factors of an effective control self-assessment (CSA) program5