CISA Exam Dumps - Certified Information Systems Auditor

The best way to determine whether unauthorized changes have been made to production programs is to use source code comparison software to compare the current version of the programs with the previous version or the approved version. This will identify any changes that have been made without proper authorization or documentation. Tracing PCRs to logs or vice versa will only verify that the authorized changes have been recorded, but not detect any unauthorized changes. References: Standards, Guidelines, Tools and Techniques - ISACA, section “IS Audit and Assurance Tools and Techniques”

The concept of materiality is most important for an IS auditor to apply when planning an audit engagement, because it helps the auditor to determine the scope, objectives, procedures and resources of the audit. Materiality is the degree to which an omission or misstatement of information could affect the users’ decisions or the achievement of the audit objectives. By applying the concept of materiality, the auditor can focus on the most significant and relevant areas of the audit and avoid wasting time and effort on trivial or immaterial matters. The other options are not as important as planning an audit engagement, because they are either based on or affected by the materiality assessment done during the planning phase. References:

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, chapter 1, section 1.31

ISACA, IT Audit and Assurance Standards, Guidelines and Tools and Techniques forIS Audit and Assurance Professionals, section 12022

An audit universe is a comprehensive list of all the auditable entities, processes, and activities within an organization. It helps the IS auditor to identify the scope, objectives, and priorities of the audit plan, as well as the resources and methodologies required to conduct the audits. An audit universe can also help the IS auditor to ensure that all the key risks, controls, and regulations are covered by the audit plan, and that there are no gaps or overlaps in the audit coverage.

The first activity that the IS auditor should perform when preparing a plan for audits to be carried out over a specified period is to determine the audit universe. This involves defining the criteria and methods for identifying and categorizing the auditable units, such as by business function, process, system, location, or risk level. The IS auditor should also consult with the management and otherstakeholders to obtain their input and expectations for the audit plan. The IS auditor should then document and validate the audit universe, and update it regularly to reflect any changes in the organization’s structure, operations, or environment.

The other three activities are also important for preparing an audit plan, but they should be performed after determining the audit universe. Allocating audit resources involves assigning staff, time, budget, and tools to each audit based on their complexity, priority, and availability. Prioritizing risks involves assessing the likelihood and impact of each risk associated with each auditable unit, and ranking them according to their significance and urgency. Reviewing prior audit reports involves analyzing the findings, recommendations, and actions from previous audits related to each auditable unit, and evaluating their current status and relevance.

Therefore, determining the audit universe is the best answer.

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.

 The use of control totals satisfies the control objective of processing integrity. Processing integrity refers to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and validity of data processing. Control totals are a method of verifying the correctness of data processing by comparing the total value or count of a batch of transactions before and after processing. For example, if a batch of 100 invoices is entered into an accounting system, the total amount and number of invoices should match before and after processing. If there is a discrepancy, it indicates an error in data entry, transmission, or processing. Control totals help to ensure that no transactions are lost, duplicated, or altered during processing.

 Requiring written authorization for all payment transactions is the IS auditor’s best recommendation for a compensating control in an environment where segregation of duties (SoD) cannot be enforced in an accounts payable system. SoD is a principle that requires different individuals or functions to perform different tasks or roles in a business process, such as initiating, approving, recording and reconciling transactions. SoD reduces the risk of errors, fraud and misuse of resources by preventing any single person or function from having excessive or conflicting authority or responsibility. A compensating control is a control that mitigates or reduces the risk associated with the absence or weakness of another control. Requiring written authorization for all payment transactions is a compensating control that provides an independent verification and approval of each transaction before it is processed by the accounts payable system. This control can help to detect and prevent unauthorized, duplicate or erroneous payments, and to ensure compliance with policies and procedures. The other options are not as effective as option A, as they do not provide an independent verification or approval of payment transactions. Restricting payment authorization to senior staff members is a control that limits the number of people who can authorize payments, but it does not prevent them from initiating or processing payments themselves, which could violate SoD. Reconciling payment transactions with invoices is a control that verifies that the payments match the invoices, but it does not prevent unauthorized, duplicate or erroneous payments from being processed by the accounts payable system. Reviewing payment transaction history is a control that monitors and analyzes thepayment transactions after they have been processed by the accounts payable system, but it does not prevent unauthorized, duplicate or erroneous payments from occurring in the first place. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 5: Protection of Information Assets, Section 5.2: Logical Access.

 The auditor’s best course of action when senior management disagrees with some of the facts presented in the draft audit report is to gather evidence to analyze senior management’s objections. The auditor should not revise the assessment, escalate the issue, or finalize the report without changes until they have evaluated the validity and relevance of senior management’s objections and resolved any discrepancies or misunderstandings. The auditor should maintain a professional and objective attitude and seek to present a fair and accurate audit report based on sufficient and appropriate evidence. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), page 372

CISA Questions,Answers & Explanations Database, question ID 3338

This should be the first thing that an IS auditor considers when evaluating firewall rules, because it defines the objectives, standards, and guidelines for securing the organization’s network and information assets. The firewall rules should be aligned with the organization’s security policy, and reflect the level of risk and protection required for each type of network traffic, system, or data. The IS auditor should compare the firewall rules with the security policy, and identify any discrepancies, gaps, or conflicts that could compromise the security or performance of the network.

The other options are not as important as the organization’s security policy when evaluating firewall rules:

The number of remote nodes. This is a factor that may affect the complexity and scalability of the firewall rules, but it is not a primary consideration for the IS auditor. Remote nodes are devices or systems that connect to the network from outside locations, such as teleworkers, mobile users, or branch offices. The IS auditor should ensure that the firewall rules provide adequate security and access control for remote nodes, but this depends on the organization’s security policy and business needs.

The firewalls’ default settings. These are the predefined configurations that come with the firewall devices or software, and that determine how they handle network traffic by default. The IS auditor should review the firewalls’ default settings, and verify that they are appropriate and secure for the organization’s network environment. However, the firewalls’ default settings may not match the organization’s security policy or specific requirements, and may need to be customized or overridden by firewall rules.

The physical location of the firewalls. This is a factor that may affect the placement and design of the firewall rules, but it is not a critical consideration for the IS auditor. The physical location of the firewalls refers to where they are installed or deployed in relation to the network topology, such as at the network perimeter, between network segments, or on individual hosts. The IS auditor should ensure that the firewall rules are consistent and coordinated across different locations, but this depends on the organization’s security policy and network architecture.