CISA Exam Dumps - Certified Information Systems Auditor

 The first thing that an IS auditor should review when finding that transaction processing times in an order processing system have significantly increased after a major release is stress testing results. Stress testing is a type of testing that evaluates how a system performs under extreme or abnormal conditions, such as high volume, load, or concurrency of transactions. Stress testing results can help explain why transaction processing times in an order processing system have significantly increased after a major release by revealing any bottlenecks, limitations, or errors in the system’s capacity, performance, or functionality under stress. The other options are not as relevant as stress testing results in explaining why transaction processing times in an order processing system have significantly increased after a major release, as they do not directly measure how the systemperforms under extreme or abnormal conditions. Capacity management plan is a document that defines and implements the processes and activities for ensuring that the system has adequate resources and capabilities to meet current and future demands. Training plans are documents that define and implement the processes and activities for ensuring that the system users have adequate skills and knowledge to use the system effectively and efficiently. Database conversion results are outcomes or outputs of transforming data from one format or structure to another to suit the system’s requirements or specifications. References: CISA Review Manual (DigitalVersion), Chapter 3, Section 3.3

 The IS audit manager should specifically review the detailed evidence of the successes and weaknesses of all contingency testing to substantiate the conclusions of the audit of the corporate disaster recovery test. This is because the detailed evidence can provide the audit manager with a clear and objective picture of how well the disaster recovery plan was executed, what issues or gaps were encountered, and what recommendations or actions were taken to address them. The detailed evidence can also help the audit manager to verify the accuracy, completeness, and validity of the audit findings, as well as to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the disaster recovery controls.

The other options are not as specific or relevant as the detailed evidence of all contingency testing. Overviews of interviews between data center personnel and the auditor may provide some useful information, but they are not sufficient to substantiate the conclusions without supporting evidence from the actual testing. Prior audit reports involving other corporate disaster recovery audits may provide some benchmarking or comparison data, but they are not directly related to the current audit scope and objectives. Summary memos reflecting audit opinions regarding noted weaknesses may provide some high-level insights, but they are not enough to substantiate the conclusions without detailed evidence to back them up.

 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

The most effective way to minimize downtime during system conversions is to use a parallel run. A parallel run is a method of system conversion where both the old and new systems operate simultaneously for a period of time until the new system is verified to be functioning correctly. Thisreduces the risk of errors, data loss, or system failure during conversion and allows for a smooth transition from one system to another. References: CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 467

 Write access to production program libraries presents the greatest risk when granted to a new member of the system development staff. Production program libraries contain executable code that runs on live systems and supports critical business functions. Write access allows a user to modify or delete existing programs, or add new programs to the library. If a user were to make unauthorized or erroneous changes to production programs, it could cause serious disruptions, errors, or security breaches in the organization’s operations. Therefore, writeaccess to production program libraries should be restricted to authorized personnel only, and subject to strict change management controls. 

The IS auditor’s first course of action should be to verify the results of the critical automatic calculations made by the system to determine the validity of user concerns. This is because the IS auditor needs to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit findings and conclusions. By verifying the results, the IS auditor can assess whether there are any errors or discrepancies in the system’s calculations that could affect the accuracy and reliability of the financial data. The IS auditor can use various techniques to verify the results, such as re-performing the calculations, comparing them with expected values, or tracing them to source documents. 

The primary benefit of using a dry-pipe fire-suppression system rather than a wet-pipe system is that a dry-pipe system has a decreased risk of leakage, as the pipes are filled with pressurized air or nitrogen instead of water until the system is activated. A wet-pipe system has a higher risk of leakage, corrosion, and freezing. A dry-pipe system is not more effective at suppressing flames, as it uses the same water-based suppressant as a wet-pipe system. A dry-pipe system does not allow more time to abort release of the suppressant, as it has a delay of only a few seconds before the water is released. A dry-pipe system does not disperse dry chemical suppressants exclusively, as it uses water as the primary suppressant. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3

Requiring a key code to be entered on the printer to produce hard copy is a method to prevent disclosure of classified documents printed on a shared printer. This is because requiring a key code adds an extra layer of security and authentication to the printing process, ensuring that only authorized users can access and retrieve the printed documents. Requiring a key code also prevents unauthorized users from viewingor tampering with the documents while they are in the printer’s queue or output tray1.

Using passwords to allow authorized users to send documents to the printer is not a sufficient method to prevent disclosure of classified documents printed on a shared printer. This is because passwords only protect the transmission of the documents from the user’s computer to the printer, but they do not protect the documents once they are printed. Passwords can also be compromised or forgotten by users, making them vulnerable to unauthorized access or denial of service2.

Encrypting the data stream between the user’s computer and the printer is not a sufficient method to prevent disclosure of classified documents printed on a shared printer. This is because encryption only protects the confidentiality and integrity of the documents while they are in transit, but they do not protect the documents once they are printed. Encryption can also introduce performance issues or compatibility problems with different printers or devices2.

Producing a header page with classification level for printed documents is not a method to prevent disclosure of classified documents printed on a shared printer. This is because producing a header page only informs the users about the sensitivity and handling of the documents, but it does not prevent unauthorized users from accessing or viewing them. Producing a header page can also waste paper and ink, as well asincrease the risk of misplacing or mixing up the documents