CISA Exam Dumps - Certified Information Systems Auditor

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 throughBYOD 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. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3

KPIs are not clearly defined is the most concerning finding for an IS auditor, because it implies that the third-party vendor does not have a clear understanding of what constitutes success or failure in their performance. This can lead to inaccurate or misleading reporting, poor decision making, and lack of accountability. KPIs should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) and aligned with the business objectives and expectations of the stakeholders12. References: 1: CISAReview Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2 2: CISA Online Review Course, Module 5, Lesson 3

 A primary responsibility of an IT steering committee is prioritizing IT projects in accordance with business requirements, as this ensures that IT resources are allocated to support the strategic objectives and needs of the organization. Reviewing periodic IT risk assessments, validating and monitoring the skill sets of IT department staff, and establishing IT budgets for the business are important activities, but they are not the primary responsibility of an IT steering committee. They may be delegated to other IT governance bodies or functions within the organization. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: Information Systems Auditing Process, Section 1.2: IT Governance

The best testing approach to facilitate rapid identification of application interface errors is automated testing. Automated testing is the use of software tools or scripts to execute predefined test cases, compare expected and actual outcomes, and report any discrepancies. Automated testing can help to speed up the testing process, increase test coverage, reduce human errors, and improve test accuracy and consistency. Automated testing can also help to detect interface errors that may occur due to incompatible data formats, communication protocols, or system configurations. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.3.11

CISA OnlineReview Course, Domain 2, Module 2, Lesson 1

 The best approach to determine whether IT service delivery is based on consistently effective processes is to evaluate key performance indicators (KPIs). KPIs are measurable values that demonstrate how effectively an organization is achieving its key objectives. KPIs can help the IT governance body to monitor and assess the performance, quality, and efficiency of the IT service delivery processes. KPIs can also help to identify areas for improvement and benchmark against best practices or industry standards. References:

CISA Review Manual (DigitalVersion), Chapter 1, Section 1.3.21

CISA Online Review Course, Domain 5, Module 2, Lesson 22

 The business process owner is the most important stakeholder to involve in the review of the processes that prevent fraud within a business expense claim system. This is because the business process owner is responsible for defining, implementing, and monitoring the business rules and policies that govern the expense claim process. The business process owner also has the authority and accountability to approve or reject expense claims, as well as to investigate and report any suspicious or fraudulent activities. The business process owner can provide valuable insights and feedback to the IS auditor on the effectiveness and efficiency of the current processes, aswell as the potential risks and controls that need to be addressed12.

The information security manager is not the most important stakeholder because their role is mainly focused on ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information systems and data that support the expense claim process. The information security manager can help the IS auditor with assessing the technical aspects of the system, such as access controls, encryption, logging, and backup, but they may not have sufficient knowledge or authority over the business rules and policies that prevent fraud1.

The quality assurance (QA) manager is not the most important stakeholder because their role is mainly focused on ensuring the quality and reliability of the software applications and systems that support the expense claim process. The QA manager can help the IS auditor with testing and verifying the functionality and performanceof the system, but they may not have sufficient knowledge or authority over the business rules and policies that prevent fraud1.

The business department executive is not the most important stakeholder because their role is mainly focused on overseeing the strategic objectives and financial performance of the business department that uses the expense claim system. The business department executive can help the IS auditor with understanding the business context and needs of the expense claim process, but they may not have sufficient knowledge or authority over the operational details and controls that prevent fraud

 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.

References:

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

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

The first thing that an IS auditor should do when a follow-up audit reveals some management action plans have not been initiated is to escalate the lack of plan completion to executive management. This is because the failure to implement the agreed management action plans may indicate that the management is not taking the audit findings and recommendations seriously, or that they are accepting too much risk by not addressing the identified issues. Escalating the lack of plan completion to executive management can help to raise awareness and accountability, as well as to seek support and intervention to ensure that the management action plans are executed in a timely and effective manner12.

Confirming whether the identified risks are still valid is not the first thing to do, although it may be a useful step to reassess the current situation and the potential impact of not implementing the management action plans. However,confirming the validity of the risks does not address the rootcauseof why the management action plans have not been initiated, nor does it provide any assurance or remediation for the unresolved issues34.

Providing a report to the audit committee is not the first thing to do, although it may be a necessary step to communicate and document the results of the follow-up audit. However, providing a report to the audit committee does not guarantee that the management action plans will be initiated, nor does it resolve any conflicts or challenges that may prevent the management from implementing them34.

Requesting an additional action plan review to confirm the findings is not the first thing to do, although it may be a prudent step to verify and validate the accuracy and completeness of the follow-up audit. However, requesting an additional review may delay or defer the implementation of the management action plans, as well as consume more internalaudit resources and time