30 CISA Practice 1 Questions Answer and Explanation

The most important thing for the auditor to confirm when sourcing the population data for testing accounts payable controls by performing data analytics is that the data is taken directly from the system. Taking the data directly from the system can help ensure that the data is authentic, complete, and accurate, and that it has not been manipulated or modified by any intermediary sources or processes. The other options are not as important as taking the data directly from the system, as they do not affect the validity or reliability of the data. There is no privacy information in the data is a privacy concern that can help protect the confidentiality and integrity of personal or sensitive data, but it does not affect the accuracy or completeness of the data. The data can be obtained in a timely manner is a logistical concern that can help facilitate the efficiency and effectiveness of the data analytics process, but it does not affect the authenticity or accuracy of the data. The data analysis tools have been recently updated is a technical concern that can help enhance the functionality and performance of the data analytics tools, but it does not affect the validity or reliability of the data. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

The most useful tool for determining whether the goals of IT are aligned with the organization’s goals is a balanced scorecard. A balanced scorecard is a strategic management system that translates an organization’s vision and mission into a set of objectives and measures across four perspectives: financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth. A balanced scorecard helps align IT goals with organizational goals by linking them to a common strategy map that shows how IT contributes to value creation and performance improvement in each perspective. A balanced scorecard also helps monitor and evaluate IT performance against predefined targets and indicators. Enterprise dashboard, enterprise architecture (EA), and key performance indicators (KPIs) are not the most useful tools for determining whether the goals of IT are aligned with the organization’s goals. These tools may help communicate, design, or measure IT goals or activities, but they do not provide a comprehensive framework for aligning IT goals with organizational goals across multiple dimensions.

The metric that best indicates the effectiveness of awareness training is the number of users reporting receipt of the email to the information security team. This shows that the users are able to recognize and report a phishing email, which is a common social engineering technique used by attackers to trick users into revealing sensitive information or installing malicious software. The other metrics do not demonstrate a high level of security awareness, as they either ignore, follow, or forward the phishing email, which could expose the organization to potential risks. References: CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 326

To confirm integrity for a hashed message, the receiver should use the same hashing algorithm as the sender’s to create a binary image of the file. A hashing algorithm is a mathematical function that transforms an input data into a fixed-length output value, called a hash or a digest. A hashing algorithm has two main properties: it is one- way, meaning that it is easy to compute the hash from the input, but hard to recover the input from the hash; and it is collision-resistant, meaning that it is very unlikely to find two different inputs that produce the same hash. These properties make hashing algorithms useful for verifying the integrity of data, as any change in the input data will result in a different hash value. Therefore, to confirm integrity for a hashed message, the receiver should use the same hashing algorithm as the sender’s to create a binary image of the file, which is a representation of the file in bits (0s and 1s). The receiver should then compare this binary image with the hash value sent by the sender. If they match, then the message has not been altered in transit. If they do not match, then the message has been corrupted or tampered with. References: ✑ Ensuring Data Integrity with Hash Codes ✑ Message Integrity

Business processes should be the primary focus of an IS auditor when developing a risk-based IS audit program, because they represent the core activities and functions of the organization that support its objectives and goals. Business processes also involve the use of IT resources and systems that may pose risks to the organization’s performance and compliance. A risk-based IS audit program should identify and assess the risks associated with the business processes and determine the appropriate audit scope and procedures to provide assurance on their effectiveness and efficiency. Portfolio management, business plans, and IT strategic plans are also relevant factors for developing a risk-based IS audit program, but they are not as important as business processes. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1

The expected costs for recovering the business would be used when performing a business impact analysis (BIA). A BIA is a process of identifying and evaluating the potential effects of disruptions to critical business functions or processes. A BIA helps to determine the recovery priorities, strategies, and resources needed to resume normal operations after a disruption. One of the key outputs of a BIA is an estimate of the financial losses or costs associated with different types of disruptions, such as lost revenue, increased expenses, contractual penalties, or regulatory fines.

The most important control to assess in an audit of an organization’s accounts payable processes is segregation of duties between issuing purchase orders and making payments. Segregation of duties is a principle that requires different individuals or departments to perform different tasks or functions within a process, in order to prevent fraud, errors, or conflicts of interest. In the accounts payable process, segregation of duties between issuing purchase orders and making payments ensures that no one person can initiate and complete a transaction without proper authorization and verification. This reduces the risk of duplicate payments, overpayments, unauthorized payments, or payments to fictitious vendors. References: ✑ Accounts payable controls ✑ Accounts Payable Internal Controls: A Simple Checklist

The best recommendation for a small IT web development company where developers must have write access to production is to remove production access from the developers. Production access is the ability to modify or update the live systems or applications that are used by customers or end users. Production access should be restricted to authorized and qualified personnel only, as any changes or errors in production can affect the functionality, performance, or security of the systems or applications. Developers should not have write access to production, as they may introduce bugs, vulnerabilities, or inconsistencies in the code that can compromise the quality or reliability of the systems or applications. The other options are not as effective as removing production access from the developers, as they do not address the root cause of the problem or provide the same benefits. Hiring another person to perform migration to production is a costly solution that can help segregate the roles and responsibilities of developers and migrators, but it does not remove production access from the developers. Implementing continuous monitoring controls is a good practice that can help detect and correct any issues or anomalies in production, but it does not remove production access from the developers. Performing a user access review for the development team is a detective control that can help verify and validate the access rights and privileges of developers, but it does not remove production access from the developers. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

The best test to provide assurance that a health care organization is handling patient data appropriately is compliance with local laws and regulations, as these are the primary sources of authority and obligation for data protection and privacy. Compliance with action plans, industry standards, or organizational policies and procedures are also important, but they may not cover all the legal requirements or reflect the current best practices for handling patient data. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.3

The best recommendation to prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers by accounts payable employees is dual control. Dual control is a segregation of duties control that requires two or more individuals to perform or authorize a transaction or activity. Dual control can prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers by requiring independent verification and approval of payment requests, amounts, and recipients by different accounts payable employees. The other options are not as effective as dual control in preventing fraudulent electronic funds transfers, as they do not involve independent checks or approvals. Periodic vendor reviews are detective controls that can help identify any irregularities or anomalies in vendor payments, but they do not prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers from occurring. Independent reconciliation is a detective control that can help compare and confirm payment records with bank statements, but it does not prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers from occurring. Re-keying of monetary amounts is an input control that can help detect any errors or discrepancies in payment amounts, but it does not prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers from occurring. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

Parallel processing is a system implementation approach that involves running the new system and the old system simultaneously for a period of time until the new system is verified and accepted. The primary advantage of parallel processing is that it provides assurance that the new system meets performance requirements and produces the same or better results as the old system. Parallel processing also minimizes the risk of system failure and data loss, as the old system can be used as a backup or fallback option in case of any problems with the new system.

The primary basis for selecting which IS audits to perform in the coming year is the organizational risk assessment. An organizational risk assessment is a formal process for identifying, evaluating, and controlling risks that may affect the achievement of the organization’s goals and objectives3. An organizational risk assessment can help IS auditors prioritize and plan their audit activities based on the level of risk exposure and impact of each area or process within the organization. An organizational risk assessment can also help IS auditors align their audit objectives and criteria with the organization’s strategy and performance indicators. Senior management’s request, prior year’s audit findings, and previous audit coverage and scope are also possible bases for selecting which IS audits to perform in the coming year, but not as primary as the organizational risk assessment. These factors are more secondary or supplementary sources of information that can help IS auditors refine or adjust their audit plan based on specific needs or issues identified by management or previous audits. However, these factors may not reflect the current or emerging risks that may affect the organization’s operations or performance. References: ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition, page 295

Allowing only corporate IM solutions is the best control to mitigate the malware risk associated with an IM system, because it can prevent unauthorized or malicious IM applications from accessing the network and infecting the system with malware. Corporate IM solutions can also enforce security policies and standards, such as encryption, authentication, and logging, to protect the IM system from malware attacks. Blocking attachments in IM, blocking external IM traffic, and encrypting IM traffic are also possible controls to mitigate the malware risk, but they are not as effective as allowing only corporate IM solutions. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.4.4

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.

The IS auditor’s next course of action after finding that firewalls are outdated and not supported by vendors should be to determine the risk of not replacing the firewall. Outdated firewalls may have known vulnerabilities that can be exploited by attackers to bypass security controls and access the network. They may also lack compatibility with newer technologies or standards that are required for optimal network performance and protection. Not replacing the firewall could expose the organization to various threats, such as data breaches, denial-of-service attacks, malware infections, or regulatory noncompliance. The IS auditor should assess the likelihood and impact of these threats and quantify the risk level for management to make informed decisions.

If an IS audit reveals that an organization is not proactively addressing known vulnerabilities, the IS auditor should recommend that the organization assess the security risks to the business first, as this would help to prioritize the vulnerabilities based on their impact and likelihood, and determine the appropriate mitigation strategies. Verifying the disaster recovery plan (DRP) has been tested, ensuring the intrusion prevention system (IPS) is effective, and confirming the incident response team understands the issue are important steps, but they are not as urgent as assessing the security risks to the business. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.6

The best metric to assure compliance with the policy of providing security awareness training to all new employees is the percentage of new hires that have completed the training, as this directly measures the extent to which the policy is implemented and enforced. The number of new hires who have violated enterprise security policies, the number of reported incidents by new hires, and the percentage of new hires who report incidents are not directly related to the policy, as they may depend on other factors such as the nature and frequency of threats, the effectiveness of security controls, and the reporting culture of the organization. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.7

An IS auditor would be most concerned if process ownership has not been established for the information asset management process, as this would indicate a lack of accountability, responsibility, and authority for managing the assets throughout their lifecycle. The process owner should also ensure that the process is aligned with the organization’s objectives, policies, and standards. The process should require specifying the physical locations of assets, include asset review, and identify asset value, but these are less critical than establishing process ownership. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.3

The IS auditor’s best course of action in this situation is to present observations for discussion only. Observations are factual statements or findings that are based on the audit evidence collected and analyzed during the audit. Observations can be presented to management for discussion and feedback, but they should not be considered as final conclusions or recommendations until the audit is completed and the audit report is issued. The other options are not appropriate for presenting the findings to date, as they may compromise the audit quality or integrity. Reviewing working papers with the auditee is not advisable, as working papers are confidential documents that contain the auditor’s notes, calculations, and opinions that may not be relevant or accurate for management’s review. Requesting the auditee provide management responses is premature, as management responses should be obtained after the audit report is issued and the audit findings and recommendations are finalized. Requesting management wait until a final report is ready for discussion is impractical, as management may have a legitimate interest or need to know the audit progress and results as soon as possible. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.3

The effectiveness of a risk management program can be measured by how well it reduces the residual risk, which is the risk that remains after applying controls, to an acceptable level. Inherent risk is the risk that exists before applying any controls, and it cannot be eliminated completely. Control risk is the risk that the controls fail to prevent or detect a risk event, and it is a component of residual risk. Overall risk is not a meaningful metric for assessing the effectiveness of a risk management program, as it does not account for the impact and likelihood of different risk events. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2

The greatest concern for an IS auditor when evaluating an organization’s IT strategy and plans is that IT is not engaged in business strategic planning, as this indicates a lack of alignment between IT and business objectives, which could result in inefficient and ineffective use of IT resources and capabilities. The absence of a defined IT security policy, the nondistribution of business strategy meeting minutes, and the inadequate documentation of IT strategic planning are also issues that should be addressed by an IS auditor, but they are not as significant as IT’s noninvolvement in business strategic planning. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.1

Changing the default configurations of a database system is a critical control for securing it from unauthorized access or exploitation. Default configurations often include weak passwords, unnecessary services, open ports, or known vulnerabilities that can be easily exploited by attackers. The other options are not as important as changing the default configurations, as they do not address the root cause of the security risks. Normalizing tables in the database is a design technique for improving data quality and performance, but it does not affect security. Changing the service port used by the database server is a form of security by obscurity, which can be easily bypassed by port scanning tools. Using the default administration account after changing the account password is still risky, as the account name may be known or guessed by attackers. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4

The greatest concern associated with a high number of IT policy exceptions approved by management is that the exceptions may result in noncompliance. IT policy exceptions are deviations from the established IT policies that are granted by management for specific reasons and circumstances. However, if there are too many exceptions, it may indicate that the IT policies are not aligned with the business needs, regulatory requirements, or best practices. This may expose the organization to legal, contractual, or reputational risks due to noncompliance. The other options are not as concerning as noncompliance, as they do not have the same potential impact or consequences. The exceptions are likely to continue indefinitely is a possible outcome of a high number of exceptions, but it does not necessarily imply a negative effect on the organization. The exceptions may elevate the level of operational risk is a valid concern, but it can be mitigated by implementing compensating controls or monitoring mechanisms. The exceptions may negatively impact process efficiency is a minor concern, as it does not affect the effectiveness or reliability of the IT processes. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

An organization’s audit charter primarily describes the auditors’ authority to conduct audits. The audit charter is a formal document that defines the purpose, scope, responsibilities, and reporting relationships of the internal audit function. It also establishes the auditors’ right of access to information, records, personnel, and physical properties relevant to their work. The audit charter provides the basis for the auditors’ independence and accountability to the governing body and senior management.

The best recommendation to mitigate the risk of data leakage from lost or stolen devices that contain confidential data is to configure them to auto-wipe after multiple failed access attempts, as this would prevent unauthorized access and erase sensitive information from the device. Requiring employees to attend security awareness training, password protecting critical data files, or enabling device auto-lock function are also good practices, but they may not be sufficient or effective in preventing data leakage from lost or stolen devices. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.3

The decision to accept an IT control risk related to data quality should be the responsibility of the business owner. The business owner is the person who has the authority and accountability for the business process that relies on the data quality. The business owner should understand the impact of data quality issues on the business objectives, performance, and compliance. The business owner should also be involved in defining the data quality requirements, assessing the data quality risks, and implementing the data quality controls or mitigation strategies.

The best way to determine whether a test of a disaster recovery plan (DRP) was successful is to analyze whether predetermined test objectives were met. Test objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals that define what the test aims to accomplish and how it will be evaluated. Test objectives should be aligned with the DRP objectives and scope, and should cover aspects such as recovery time objectives (RTOs), recovery point objectives (RPOs), critical business functions, roles and responsibilities, communication channels, backup systems, and contingency procedures. By comparing the actual test results with the expected test objectives, the IS auditor can measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the DRP and identify any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed.

Version control is a process of managing changes to an application or a document. It ensures that only the latest approved version of the application is used by end-users, which reduces the risk of errors, inconsistencies, and unauthorized modifications. Version control also allows tracking the history of changes and restoring previous versions if needed.

Ransomware is a type of malicious software that encrypts the victim’s data and demands a ransom for its decryption1. Ransomware attacks can cause significant damage to an organization’s operations, reputation, and finances1. Therefore, it is important to mitigate the impact of ransomware attacks by implementing effective prevention and recovery strategies. One of the best ways to mitigate the impact of ransomware attacks is to back up data frequently12345. Data backups are copies of the organization’s data that are stored in a separate location or medium, such as an external hard drive, cloud storage, or tape2. Data backups can help the organization restore its data in case of a ransomware attack, without paying the ransom or losing valuable information2. Data backups should be performed regularly, preferably daily or weekly, depending on the criticality and volume of the data2. Data backups should also be tested periodically to ensure their integrity and usability2. The other options are not as effective as backing up data frequently in mitigating the impact of ransomware attacks. Invoking the disaster recovery plan (DRP) is a reactive measure that can help the organization resume its operations after a ransomware attack, but it does not prevent or reduce the damage caused by the attack3. Paying the ransom is not a recommended option, as it does not guarantee the decryption of the data or the deletion of the stolen data by the attackers. Paying the ransom also encourages further attacks and funds criminal activities14. Requiring password changes for administrative accounts is a good security practice, but it is not sufficient to prevent or recover from ransomware attacks. Ransomware attacks can exploit other vulnerabilities, such as phishing emails, outdated software, or weak network security15. References: 1: How to Mitigate the Risk of Ransomware Attacks: The Definitive Guide 2: Mitigating malware and ransomware attacks - The National Cyber Security Centre 3: 3 steps to prevent and recover from ransomware 4: Ransomware Epidemic: Use these 8 Strategies to Mitigate Risk 5: Practical Steps to Mitigate Ransomware Attacks - ITSecurityWire

Fine tuning the intrusion detection system (IDS) is the best recommendation to reduce the number of false positive alerts that overwhelm the log management system, because it can help adjust the sensitivity and accuracy of the IDS rules and signatures to match the network environment and traffic patterns. Establishing criteria for reviewing alerts, recruiting more monitoring personnel, and reducing the firewall rules are not effective solutions to address the root cause of the false positive alerts, but rather ways to cope with the consequences. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.4.3