CISA Exam Dumps - Certified Information Systems Auditor

 A top-down maturity model process is a method of assessing and improving the maturity level of a process or a set of processes within an organization. A maturity level is a measure of how well-defined, controlled, measured, and optimized a process is. A top-down maturity model process starts with defining the desired maturity level and then identifying the gaps and improvement opportunities for each process. This helps prioritize the processes that need the most attention and improvement. Therefore, a result of utilizing a top-down maturity model process is identification of processes with the most improvement opportunities.

A means of benchmarking the effectiveness of similar processes with peers, a means of comparing the effectiveness of other processes within the enterprise, and identification of older, more established processes to ensure timely review are not results of utilizing a top-down maturity model process. These are possible benefits or objectives of using other types of maturity models or assessment methods, but they are not specific to a top-down approach.

 An IT balanced scorecard is a strategic management tool that aligns IT objectives with business goals and measures the performance of IT processes using key performance indicators (KPIs). It is the most effective means of monitoring governance of enterprise IT, which is the process of ensuring that IT supports the organization’s strategy and objectives. Governance of enterprise IT covers aspects such as IT value delivery, IT risk management, IT resource management, and IT performance measurement. An IT balanced scorecard can help monitor these aspects and provide feedback to improve IT governance. References: ISACA Frameworks: Blueprints for Success, CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)

The best way to assess the effectiveness of changes made to processes and tools related to an organization’s BCP is to review the full test results of the BCP. Full test results can provide evidence of whether the changes have improved the BCP’s objectives, such as recovery time objectives (RTOs), recovery point objectives (RPOs), and business impact analysis (BIA). The other options are not as effective as reviewing the full test results, as they do not demonstrate the actual performance of the BCP under simulated disaster scenarios. Completed test plans are only documents that outline the scope, objectives, and procedures of the BCP testing, but they do not show the outcomes or issues encountered during the testing. Updated inventory of systems is a component of the BCP that identifies the critical systems and resources required for business continuity, but it does not measure the effectiveness of the BCP changes. Change management processes are controls that ensure that changes to the BCP are authorized, documented, and communicated, but they do not evaluate the impact or benefit of the changes. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3

 A post-implementation review is a process of evaluating the outcome and benefits of a project or a system after it has been implemented. The main purpose of a post-implementation review is to determine to what extent the business requirements are being met by the new system. Therefore, the most likely aspect to be assessed is the results of line processing, which refers to the actual performance and functionality of the system in the operational environment.

 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 foroverseeing 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. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.3

 User requirements are statements that describe what the users expect from the software system in terms of functionality, quality, and usability. They are essential inputs for the software development process, as they guide the design, implementation, testing, and deployment of the system. Therefore, an IS auditor’s greatest concern when reviewing the early stages of a software development project would be the lack of acceptance criteria behind user requirements. Acceptance criteria are measurable conditions that define when a user requirement is met or satisfied. They help ensure that the user requirements are clear, complete, consistent, testable, and verifiable. Without acceptance criteria, it would be difficult to evaluate whether the system meets the user expectations and delivers value to the organization. Technical documentation, such as program code, is usually produced in later stages of the software development process. Completion of all requirements at the end of each sprint is not mandatory in agile software development methods, as long as there is a prioritized backlog of requirements that can be delivered incrementally. A detailed unit and system test plan is also important for ensuring software quality, but it depends on well-defined user requirements andacceptance criteria. References: Information Systems Acquisition, Development & Implementation, CISA ReviewManual (Digital Version)

The most effective way to maintain network integrity when using mobile devices is to implement network access control. Network access control is a security control that regulates and restricts access to network resources based on predefined policies and criteria, such as device type, identity, location, or security posture. Network access control can help maintain network integrity when using mobile devices by preventing unauthorized or compromised devices from accessing or affecting networksystems or data. The other options are not as effective as network access control in maintaining network integrity when using mobile devices, as they do not address all aspects of network access or security. Implementing outbound firewall rules is a security control that filters and blocks network traffic based on source, destination, protocol, or port, but it does not regulate or restrict network access based on device characteristics or conditions. Performing network reviews is a monitoring activity that evaluates and reports on the performance, availability, or security of network resources, but it does not regulate or restrict network access based on device characteristics or conditions. Reviewing access control lists is a verification activity that validates and confirms the access rights and privileges of network users or devices, but it does not regulate or restrict network access based on device characteristics or conditions. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2

 The most important consideration for an IS auditor when scheduling follow-up activities for agreed-upon management responses to remediate audit observations is the risk rating of original findings. The risk rating of original findings is an assessment of the potential impact or likelihood of an audit issue or observation on the organization’s objectives, operations, or reputation. The risk rating of original findings can help determine the priority and urgency of follow-up activities for agreed-upon management responses to remediate audit observations by ensuring that high-risk issues are addressed first and more frequently than low-risk issues. The other options are not as important as the risk rating of original findings in scheduling follow-up activities for agreed-upon management responses to remediate audit observations, as they do not reflect the significance or severity of audit issues orobservations. Business interruption due to remediation is a possible consequence of implementing corrective actions to address audit issues or observations, but it does not indicate the priority or urgency of follow-up activities. IT budgeting constraints is a possible factor that may affect the availability or feasibility of resources for implementing corrective actions to address audit issues or observations, but it does not indicate the priority or urgency of follow-up activities. Availability of responsible IT personnel is a possible factor that may affect the accountability or responsiveness of staff for implementing corrective actions to address audit issues or observations, but it does not indicate the priority or urgency of follow-up activities. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.4