CISA Exam Dumps - Certified Information Systems Auditor

The best course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit is to evaluate the residual risk due to open issues. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of controls or mitigating actions. Evaluating the residual risk due to open issues can help the IS auditor assess the impact and likelihood of the potential threats and vulnerabilities that have not been addressed by the auditee, as well as the adequacy and effectiveness of the existing controls or mitigating actions. Evaluating the residual risk due to open issues can also help the IS auditor prioritize and communicate the open issues to the auditee and other stakeholders, such as senior management or audit committee, and recommend appropriate actions or escalation procedures.

Ensuring the open issues are retained in the audit results is a course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit, but it is not the best one. Ensuring the open issues are retained in the audit results can help the IS auditor document and report the status and progress of the audit recommendations, as well as provide a basis for future follow-up audits. However, ensuring the open issues are retained in the audit results does not provide an analysis or evaluation of the residual risk due to open issues, which is more important for informing decision-making and action-taking.

Terminating the follow-up because open issues are not resolved is not a course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit, but rather a consequence or outcome of it. Terminating the follow-up because open issues are not resolved may indicate that the auditee has failed to comply with the agreed-upon actions or deadlines, or that the IS auditor has encountered significant obstacles or resistance from the auditee. Terminating the follow-up because open issues are not resolved may also trigger further actions or sanctions from the IS auditor or other authorities, such as issuing a qualified or adverse opinion, withholding certification, or imposing penalties.

Recommending compensating controls for open issues is not a course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit, but rather a possible outcome or result of it. Compensating controls are alternative or additional controls that are implemented to reduce or eliminate the risk associated with a weakness or deficiency in another control. Recommending compensating controls for open issues may be appropriate when the auditee is unable to implement the original audit recommendations due to technical, operational,financial, or other constraints, and when the compensating controls can provide a similar or equivalent level of assurance. However, recommending compensating controls for open issues requires a prior evaluation of the residual risk due to open issues, which is more important for determining whether compensating controls are necessary and feasible.

Requiring visitors to present identification and pre-approval documents before entering a data center is a preventive control because its purpose is to stop unauthorized access before it occurs. In CISA-style control classification, a preventive control is designed to avoid an incident or reduce the likelihood of an undesirable event. Screening visitors before access is granted is a classic example of prevention.

Option B is correct because the control is applied before access is granted. It is intended to prevent unauthorized individuals from entering the facility. The control does not primarily detect an event after it happens, nor does it correct a problem after occurrence.

Option A is tempting because visitor procedures are often documented in administrative policies, but the question asks for the type of control implemented in this scenario. The specific mechanism described is an entry-screening measure that functions preventively. In exam logic, when asked to choose between functional control types such as preventive, detective, and corrective, the answer should reflect what the control actually does.

Option C is incorrect because a corrective control acts after an incident to restore or remedy conditions. Visitor ID checks do not correct anything after a breach.

Option D is incorrect because a detective control identifies or alerts after or during an event, such as logs, CCTV review, or alarms. Here, the main purpose is to prevent unauthorized access before entry.

So the best answer is B, since requiring ID and pre-approval documents at the entrance is designed to prevent unauthorized physical access to the data center.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA, Differentiating Key Terms in the Information Security Hierarchy — standards and controls can prescribe required behaviors and control actions.

ISACA Journal, Information Systems Security Audit: An Ontological Framework — supports functional security control categories.

ISACA Journal, IS Audit Basics: Innovation in the IT Audit Process — supports use of standard ISACA terminology in control evaluation.

The best source of information for an IS auditor to use as a baseline to assess the adequacy of an organization’s privacy policy is the local privacy standards and regulations. Privacy standards and regulations are legal requirements that specify how personal data should be collected, processed, stored, shared, and disposed of by organizations. By using local privacy standards and regulations as a baseline, the IS auditor can ensure that the organization’s privacy policy complies with the applicable laws and protects the rights and interests of data subjects. Historical privacy breaches and related root causes, globally accepted privacy best practices, and benchmark studies of similar organizations are useful sources of information for improving an organization’s privacy policy, but they are not as authoritative and relevant as local privacy standards and regulations. References: CISAReview Manual (Digital Version): Chapter 2 - Governance and Management of Information Technology

 An organization outsourced its IS functions. To meet its responsibility for disaster recovery, the organization should coordinate disaster recovery administration with the outsourcing vendor. This is because the organization remains accountable for ensuring the continuity and availability of its IS functions, even if they are outsourced to a third party. The organization should establish clear roles and responsibilities, communication channels, testing procedures, and escalation processes with the outsourcing vendor for disaster recovery purposes. The organization should not discontinue maintenance of the disaster recovery plan (DRP), as it still needs to have a documented and updated plan for restoring its IS functions in case of a disaster. The organization should not delegate evaluation of disaster recovery to a third party or internal audit, as it still needs to monitor and review the performance and compliance of the outsourcing vendor with respect to disaster recovery objectives and standards. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), [ISACA Auditing Standards]

 A corrective control is a control that aims to restore normal operations after a disruption or incident has occurred. Executing emergency response plans is an example of a corrective control, as it helps to mitigate the impact of an incident and resume business functions. Separating equipment development testing and production is a preventive control, as it helps to avoid errors or unauthorized changes in production systems. Verifying duplicate calculations in data processing is a detective control, as it helps to identify errors or anomalies in data processing. Reviewing user access rights for segregation is also a detective control, as it helps to detect any violations of segregation of duties principles. References: ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2018, page 64