CISA Exam Dumps - Certified Information Systems Auditor

 A computer forensic audit is a process of collecting, preserving, analyzing, and presenting digital evidence from electronic devices in a legally admissible manner. It is most relevant in situations where data loss due to hacking of servers occurs, as it can help to identify the source, method, and extent of the attack, as well as recover the lost or damaged data. The other options are not as suitable for a computer forensic audit, as they relate to internal control issues, data quality issues, orsystem maintenance issues, which can be addressed by other types of audits or reviews. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Domain 4: Information Systems Operations and Business Resilience, Section 4.5 Computer Forensics1

 Sampling risk is the risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be different from the conclusion that would be reached if the entire population was tested using the same audit procedure. Sampling risk can lead to either incorrect rejection or incorrect acceptance of the audit objective. The best way to minimize sampling risk is to perform statistical sampling. Statistical sampling is a method of selecting and evaluating a sample using probability theory and mathematical calculations. Statistical sampling allows auditors to measure and control the sampling risk by determining the appropriate sample size and selection method, and evaluating the results using confidence levels and precision intervals. Statistical sampling can also provide more objective and consistent results than judgmental sampling, which relies on the auditor’s professional judgment and experience.

References:

6: Sampling Risks: Definition, Example, and Explanation - Wikiaccounting

7: Sampling Risk in Audit | Sampling vs non sampling risk - Accountinguide

9: Audit sampling | ACCA Qualification | Students | ACCA Global

Outsourcing the development of an e-banking solution when in-house technical expertise is not available can significantly reduce start-up costs. This is because the organization can avoid the expenses associated with hiring and training a full-time development team, purchasing necessary hardware and software, and maintaining the system1. While outsourcing can also potentially reduce the risk of system downtime, increase the ability to adapt the system, and provide direct oversight of risks, these benefits are not as immediate or guaranteed as the cost savings123.

References: Maxicus1, Forbes2, Strategy& - PwC3

 File checksums are values that are calculated from the contents of a file and can detect any changes or corruption in the file. They are used to verify that the files that are transferred or processed through system interfaces are not altered in any way. File checksums are more effective than periodic audits, file counts, or IT operator monitoring, which are other types of controls that can help ensure the integrity of system interfaces, but they are not as reliable or timely as file checksums.

 A transaction processing system (TPS) is a system that captures, processes, and stores data related to business transactions1. A general ledger is a system that records the financial transactions of an organization in different accounts2. An interface is a connection point between two systems that allows data exchange3. A system fix is a change or update to a system that resolves a problem or improves its functionality4.

The IS auditor should recommend to perform periodic reconciliations to validate the interface between the TPS and the general ledger is working in the future. A reconciliation is a process of comparing and verifying the data in two systems to ensure accuracy and consistency1. By performing periodic reconciliations, the IS auditor can detect and correct any errors or discrepancies in the data, such as duplicate transactions, missing transactions, or incorrect amounts. This way, the IS auditor can ensure the reliability and integrity of the financial data in both systems.

The other options are not as effective as periodic reconciliations to validate the interface. System owner sign-off for the system fix is a form of approval that indicates the system owner agrees with the change and its expected outcome4. However, this does not guarantee that the system fix will work as intended or prevent future errors. Conducting functional testing is a process of verifying that the system performs its intended functions correctly and meets its requirements4. However, this is usually done before or after the system fix is implemented, not on an ongoing basis. Improving user acceptance testing (UAT) is a process of evaluating whether the system meets the needs and expectations of the end users4. However, this is also done before or after the system fix is implemented, not on an ongoing basis. Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

References:

Transaction Interface: Organization, Process, and System

Validation of Interfaces - Ensuring Data Integrity and Quality across Systems

Oracle Payments Implementation Guide

Receiving Transactions Inserted Into Interface Table as BATCH And PENDING Are Not Processed By Receiving Transaction Processor

What Is a Transaction Processing System (TPS)? (Plus Types)

This method is known as creating a digital signature of the message. It ensures the integrity of the message by verifying that it has not been tampered with in transit. The process involves hashing the message and encrypting the hash value with the sender’s private key. Any changes to the message will result in a different hash value1. This method is used in DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM), which verifies an email’s domain and helps show that the email has not been tampered with in transit2.

References:

Understanding Digital Signatures | CISA

Using DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) in your organisation

The best recommendation for the auditor to make is D. Line management should regularly review and request modification of access rights. Access rights are the permissions and privileges granted to users to access, view, modify, or delete data or resources on a system or network1. Excessive rights are access rights that are not necessary or appropriate for a user’s role or function, and may pose a risk of unauthorized or inappropriate use of data or resources2. Therefore, it is important to ensure that access rights are alignedwith the principle of least privilege, which means that users should only have the minimum level of access required to perform their duties2.

Line management is responsible for overseeing and supervising the activities and performance of their staff, and ensuring that they comply with the organization’s policies and standards3. Therefore, line management should regularly review and request modification of access rights for their staff, as they are in the best position to:

Understand the roles and functions of their staff, and determine the appropriate level of access rights needed for them to perform their duties effectively and efficiently.

Monitor and evaluate the usage and behavior of their staff, and identify any changes or anomalies that may indicate excessive or inappropriate access rights.

Communicate and collaborate with IT security or system administrators, who are responsible for granting, revoking, or modifying access rights, and request any necessary adjustments or corrections.

Outsourcing the audit to independent and qualified resources is the best course of action for the IS audit manager who was temporarily tasked with supervising a project manager assigned to the organization’s payroll application upgrade. This is because the IS audit manager has a potential conflict of interest and a threat to objectivity and independence, which are essential principles and standards for IS auditors.

According to the ISACA Code of Professional Ethics, IS auditors should maintain objectivity and independence in their professional judgment and avoid any situations that may impair or be presumed to impair their objectivity or independence1. Objectivity is the mental attitude of an IS auditor that allows them to perform their work honestly, impartially, and with integrity, while independence is the freedom from conditions that threaten the ability of an IS auditor to carry out their work in an unbiased manner2.

The IS audit manager who was involved in supervising the payroll application upgrade project may have a self-review threat, which is the risk that an IS auditor will not appropriately evaluate the results of a previous judgment made or service performed by them or their subordinates3. The IS audit manager may also have a familiarity threat, which is the risk that an IS auditor will be influenced by a close relationship with someone involved in the project or by their own personal interests4. These threats may compromise the IS audit manager’s objectivity and independence and affect the quality and credibility of the audit.

Therefore, the IS audit manager should disclose their involvement in the project to their senior management and the audit committee and decline to perform or manage the audit. The IS audit manager should also recommend outsourcing the audit to independent and qualified resources whohave no connection or interest in the project and who have the necessary skills and experience to conduct a reliable and effective audit.

The other options are not the best course of action for the IS audit manager.

Transferring the assignment to a different audit manager despite lack of IT project management experience is not the best course of action because it may result in a low-quality audit that does not meet the expectations and standards of the stakeholders. IT project management experience is essential for auditing an IT project, as it requires knowledge of project management methodologies, tools, techniques, risks, and best practices. An audit manager who lacks IT project management experience may not be able to plan, execute, report, and follow up on the audit effectively and efficiently.

Managing the audit since there is no one else with the appropriate experience is not the best course of action because it violates the ethical principles and standards of objectivity and independence for IS auditors. Managing the audit would create a conflict of interest and a threat to objectivity and independence for the IS audit manager, as they would be reviewing their own work or that of their subordinate. Managing the audit would also undermine the credibility and reliability of the audit results and recommendations, as they may be biased or influenced by personal or professional relationships or interests.

Having a senior IS auditor manage the project with the IS audit manager performing final review is not the best course of action because it still involves the IS audit manager in the audit process, which poses a conflict of interest and a threat to objectivity and independence. Performing final review would require the IS audit manager to evaluate and approve the work done by the senior IS auditor, which may be affected by their previous involvement in or knowledge of the project. Performing final review would also expose theIS audit manager to undue pressure or influence from management or other stakeholders who may have expectations or preferences regarding the audit outcome.