CISA Exam Dumps - Certified Information Systems Auditor

A backlog consumption report is a report that shows the amount of work that has been completed and the amount of work that remains to be done in a project. It is a useful tool for measuring the progress and performance of a web-based customer service application development project, as it can indicate whether the project is on track, ahead or behind schedule, and how much effort is required to finish the project. A backlog consumption report can also help identify any issues or risks that may affect the project delivery. Critical path analysis reports, developer status reports and change management logs are also helpful for evaluating a project, but they are not as helpful as a backlog consumption report, as they do not provide a clear picture of the overall project status and completion rate. References:

: [Backlog Consumption Report Definition]

: Backlog Consumption Report | ISACA

 Backup procedures for an organization’s critical data are considered to be corrective controls, as they are designed to restore normal operations after a disruption or failure. Corrective controls aim to minimize the impact of an incident and prevent recurrence. Directive, detective and compensating controls are not related to backup procedures. Directive controls are intended to guide or instruct users to follow policies and procedures. Detective controls are intended to identify and report incidents or violations. Compensating controls are intended to mitigate the risk of a missing or ineffective primary control. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.11

 The best phase of the software development life cycle to initiate the discussion of application controls is the application design phase when process functionalities are finalized. Application controls are the policies, procedures, and techniques that ensure the completeness, accuracy, validity, and authorization of data input, processing, output, and storage in an application. Application controls help prevent, detect, or correct errors and fraud in software applications. Examples of application controls include input validation, edit checks, reconciliation, encryption, access control, audit trails, etc.

The application design phase is when the software requirements are translated into a logical and physical design that specifies how the application will look and work. This phase is the best time to discuss application controls because it allows the developers to incorporate them into the design specifications and ensure that they are aligned with the business objectives and user needs. By discussing application controls early in the design phase, the developers can also avoid costly rework or changes later in the development process.

The other phases are not as optimal as the application design phase to initiate the discussion of application controls. A. Business case development phase when stakeholders are identified. The business case development phase is when the feasibility, scope, objectives, benefits, risks, and costs of a software project are defined and evaluated. This phase is important for obtaining stakeholder approval and support for the project, but it is too early to discuss application controls in detail because the software requirements and functionalities are not yet clear or finalized. B. User acceptance testing (UAT) phase when test scenarios are designed. The user acceptance testing phase is when the software is tested by the end-users or stakeholders to verify that it meets their expectations and requirements. This phase is too late to discuss application controls because it is near the end of the development process and any changes or additions to the application controls would require retesting and revalidation of the software. C. Application coding phase when algorithms are developed to solve business problems. The application coding phase is when the software design is translated into executable code using programming languages and tools. This phase is not ideal to discuss application controls because it is after the design phase and any changes or additions to the application controls would require redesigning and recoding of the software.

The most appropriate population to sample from when testing for remediation of findings identified in an organization’s user provisioning process is all users provisioned after the final audit report was issued. This is because the final audit report is the official document that communicates the audit findings, recommendations, and action plans to the management and other stakeholders. It also establishes a baseline for measuring the progress and effectiveness of the remediation efforts. Therefore, sampling from the users provisioned after the final audit report was issued would provide the most relevant and reliable evidence of whether the audit issues have been resolved or not.

The other options are not as appropriate as option C, as they may not reflect the actual status of the remediation efforts. All users provisioned after the finding was originally identified may include users who were provisioned before the final audit report was issued, which may not capture the full impact of the remediation actions. All users provisioned after management resolved the audit issue may not be accurate, as management’s resolution may not be verified or validated by an independent party. All users who have followed user provisioning processes provided by management may not be representative, as there may be exceptions or deviations from the processes that could affect the remediation results.

Evidence collection is the process of identifying, acquiring, preserving, and documenting digital evidence from various sources, such as computers, networks, mobile devices, or cloud services, that can be used to support the investigation and prosecution of cybercrimes. Evidence collection is an IS auditor’s primary focus when evaluating the response process for cybercrimes, because it determines the quality and validity of the evidence that can be used to prove or disprove the facts of the case, identify the perpetrators, and recover the losses. Evidence collection should follow the standards and best practices for digital forensics, such as ISO/IEC 270371, which provide guidelines for ensuring the integrity, authenticity, reliability, and admissibility of the evidence2.

The other possible options are:

A. Communication with law enforcement: This is the process of reporting, cooperating, and coordinating with law enforcement agencies that have the jurisdiction and authority to investigate and prosecute cybercrimes. Communication with law enforcement is an important aspect of the response process for cybercrimes, but it is not an IS auditor’s primary focus when evaluating it. Communication with law enforcement depends on the legal and regulatory requirements, the nature and severity of the incident, and the organizational policies and procedures. Communication with law enforcement should be done after evidence collection, to avoid compromising or contaminating the evidence3.

B. Notification to regulators: This is the process of informing and updating the relevant regulatory bodies or authorities that oversee or supervise the organization’s activities or industry sector about the cybercrime incident. Notification to regulators is an important aspect of the response process for cybercrimes, but it is not an IS auditor’s primary focus when evaluating it. Notification to regulators depends on the legal and regulatory requirements, the nature and impact of the incident, and the organizational policies and procedures. Notification to regulators should be doneafter evidence collection, to avoid disclosing sensitiveor confidential information4.

C. Root cause analysis: This is the process of identifying and analyzing the underlying factors or causes that led to or contributed to the cybercrime incident. Root cause analysis is an important aspect of the response process for cybercrimes, but it is not an IS auditor’s primary focus when evaluating it. Root cause analysis helps to prevent or mitigate future incidents, improve security controls and processes, and learn from mistakes. Root cause analysis should be done after evidence collection, to avoid interfering with or affecting theinvestigation5.

The overall effectiveness of an organization’s disaster recovery planning process depends on how well the plan reflects the current and future needs and risks of the organization, and how well the plan is tested, communicated, and maintained. Among the four options given, the most important one for the IS auditor to verify is that management reviews and updates the plan annually or as changes occur.

A disaster recovery plan is not a static document that can be created once and forgotten. It is a dynamic and evolving process that requires regular review and update to ensure that it remains relevant, accurate, and effective. A disaster recovery plan should be reviewed and updated at least annually, or whenever there are significant changes in the organization’s structure, operations, environment, or regulations. These changes could affect the business impact analysis, risk assessment, recovery objectives, recovery strategies, roles and responsibilities, or resources of the disaster recovery plan. If the plan is not updated to reflect these changes, it could become obsolete, incomplete, or inconsistent, and fail to meet the organization’s recovery needs or expectations.

The other three options are not as important as reviewing and updating the plan, although they may also contribute to the effectiveness of the disaster recovery planning process. Contracting with a third party for warm site services is a possible recovery strategy that involves using a partially equipped facility that can be quickly activated in case of a disaster. However, this strategy may not be suitable or sufficient for every organization or scenario, and it does not guarantee the success of the disaster recovery plan. Scheduling an annual tabletop exercise is a good practice that involves simulating a disaster scenario and testing the plan in a hypothetical setting. However, this exercisemay not be enough to evaluate the feasibility or readiness of the plan, and it should be complemented by other types of tests, such as walkthroughs, drills, or full-scale exercises. Documenting and distributing a copy of the plan to all personnel is an essential step that ensures that everyone involved in or affected by the plan is aware of their roles and responsibilities, and has access to the relevant information and instructions. However, this step alone does not ensure that the plan is understood or followed by all personnel, and it should be accompanied by proper training, education, and awareness programs.

Therefore, reviewing and updating the plan annually or as changes occur is the best answer.

 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.

A database administrator (DBA) is responsible for maintaining the integrity, security and performance of the database systems. A DBA who is also responsible for developing and executing changes into the production environment may have a conflict of interest and pose a risk to the data quality and availability. Therefore, the IS auditor should first identify whether any compensating controls exist to mitigate this risk, such as independent reviews, approvals, audits or monitoring of the changes. Determining whether another DBA could make the changes, reporting a potential segregation of duties violation and ensuring a change management process is followed prior to implementation are possible actions that the auditor could take after identifying the compensating controls or the lack thereof. References:

: DatabaseAdministrator (DBA) Definition

: Segregation of Duties | ISACA

: [Compensating Control Definition]