CISA Exam Dumps - Certified Information Systems Auditor

The best recommendation for an organization that is unable to add new servers on demand in a cost-efficient manner is to build a virtual environment. A virtual environment is a technology that allows multiple virtual machines to run on a single physical server, sharing its resources and capabilities. A virtual environment can help the organization add new servers on demand in a cost-efficient manner by reducing the need for hardware acquisition, maintenance, and power consumption. The other options are not as effective as building a virtual environment, as they do not address the root cause of the problem or provide the same benefits. Increasing the capacity of existing systems is a short-term solution that can help improve the performance and availability of the current servers, but it does not enable the organization to add new servers on demand in a cost-efficient manner. Upgrading hardware to newer technology is a costly solution that can help enhance the functionality and reliability of the servers, but it does not enable the organization to add new servers on demand in a cost-efficient manner. Hiring temporary contract workers for the IT function is an irrelevant solution that can help supplement the IT staff’s skills and knowledge, but it does not enable the organization to add new servers on demand in a cost-efficient manner. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1

The lack of system documentation should be of most concern to an IS auditor reviewing the information systems acquisition, development, and implementation process. This is because system documentation is a vital source of information that describes the system’s purpose, functionality, design, architecture, testing, deployment, operation, and maintenance. System documentation helps the IS auditor to understand and evaluate the system’s quality, performance, security, compliance, and alignment with the business requirements and objectives. Without system documentation, the IS auditor may not be able to perform a thorough and effective audit of the system, aswell as identify any issues or risks that may affect the system’s reliability or integrity12.

Data owners are not trained on the use of data conversion tools is not the most concerning issue, although it may indicate a lack of user readiness or competence for the system implementation. Data conversion tools are software applications that help users to transform data from one format or structure to another, such as from legacy systems to new systems. Data owners are users who have the responsibility and authority to manage and control the data within their domain. Data owners should be trained on how to use data conversion tools to ensure that the data is accurately and securely transferred to the new system, as well as to avoid any data loss, corruption, or inconsistency. However, data owners are not the only users who need training for the system implementation, and data conversion tools are not the only tools that need training34.

A post-implementation lessons-learned exercise was not conducted is not the most concerning issue, although it may indicate a lack of continuous improvement or learning culture for the system development and implementation process. A post-implementation lessons-learned exercise is a meeting or a session that takes place after the completion of a system implementation project, where the project team and stakeholders discuss and document the successes and failures of the project, as well as identify any best practices or areas for improvement for future projects. Apost-implementation lessons-learned exercise can help to enhance the project management skills, knowledge, and performance of the project team and stakeholders, as well as to avoid repeating the same mistakes or problems in future projects56.

System deployment is routinely performed by contractors is not the most concerning issue, although it may pose some challenges or risks for the system implementation process. System deployment is the final stage of the system development life cycle (SDLC), where the system is installed and configured on the target environment and made available for use by end-users. System deployment can be performed by internal staff or external contractors, depending on the availability, expertise, and cost of resources. System deployment by contractors may offer some benefits such as faster delivery, lower cost, or higher quality than internal staff. However, system deployment by contractors mayalso introduce some risks such as loss of control, dependency, or security breaches over the system implementation process

The greatest risk is unintentional human error, such as misaddressing an email. Security awareness training equips users to recognize PII and verify recipients. MFA protects account access but not outbound emails. IDS detects network threats, not email content. Audit trails only provide after-the-fact evidence.

References (ISACA): COBIT® DSS05 (security awareness and user controls).

The IS auditor should first determine whether the business impact analysis (BIA) is current with the organization’s structure and context. The BIA is a critical component of the BCP and should reflect the current state of the organization. If the BIA is not up-to-date, it may not accurately reflect the impact of a disruption to the organization’s operations, including the closure of a production plant12.

The best approach to optimize resources when both internal and external audit teams are reviewing the same IT general controls area is to leverage the work performed by external audit for the internal audit testing. This can avoid duplication of efforts, reduce audit costs and enhance coordination between the audit teams. The internal audit team should evaluate the quality and reliability of the external audit work before relying on it. Ensuring both the internal and external auditors perform the work simultaneously is not an efficient use of resources, as it would create redundancy and possible interference. Requesting that the external audit team leverage the internal audit work may not be feasible or acceptable, as the external audit team may have different objectives, standards and independence requirements. Rolling forward the general controls audit to the subsequent audit year is not a good practice, as it would delay the identification and remediation of any control weaknesses in a high-risk area. References: ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2018, page 247

An IS auditor’s primary concern would be whether the recovery site devices can handle the storage requirements. The storage requirements are determined by the amount and type of data that needs to be backed up and restored in case of a disaster at the primary data center. The recovery site devices should have enough capacity, performance, reliability, and compatibility to meet these requirements.

If the recovery site devices cannot handle the storage requirements, then there is a risk that some data may not be backed up properly or may not be available for recovery when needed. This couldresult in data loss, corruption, or inconsistency, which could affect the business continuity and integrity of the organization.

Therefore, an IS auditor should verify that:

The recovery site devices have sufficient storage space to accommodate all the data that needs to be backed up from the primary data center.

The recovery site devices have adequate bandwidth and speed to transfer and access data efficiently and effectively.

The recovery site devices have appropriate security features and controls to protect data from unauthorized access or modification.

The recovery site devices are compatible with the primary data center devices in terms of hardware, software, format, and protocol.

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 root causeof 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