Isaca Updated CISA Exam Questions and Answers by zadie

 The most critical finding for an IS auditor following up on a recent security incident is that the security weakness facilitating the attack was not identified. This finding indicates that the root cause of the incident was not analyzed, and the vulnerability that allowed the attack to succeed was not remediated. This means that the organization is still exposed to the same or similar attacks in the future, and its security posture has not improved. Identifying and addressing the security weakness is a key step in the incident response process, as it helps to prevent recurrence, mitigate impact, and improve resilience.

The other findings are not as critical as the failure to identify the security weakness, but they are still important issues that should be addressed by the organization. The attack was not automatically blocked by the intrusion detection system (IDS) is a finding that suggests that the IDS was not configured properly, or that it did not have the latest signatures or rules to detect and prevent the attack. The attack could not be traced back to the originating person is a finding that implies that the organization did not have sufficient logging, monitoring, or forensic capabilities to identify and attribute the attacker. Appropriate response documentation was not maintained is a finding that indicates that the organization did not follow a consistent and formal incident response procedure, or that it did not document its actions, decisions, and lessons learned from the incident.

References:

ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition (2019), page 254

Incident Response Process - ISACA1

Incident Response: How to Identify and Fix Security Weaknesses

The most significant risk that IS auditors are required to consider for each engagement is the misalignment with business objectives. This is because IS audit engagements are intended to provide assurance that the IT systems and processes support the achievement of the business objectives and strategies. If there is a misalignment,it could result in wasted resources, missed opportunities, inefficiencies, errors, or failures that could adversely affect the organization’s performance and reputation12. References: 1: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: The Process of Auditing Information Systems, Section 1.3: Audit Risk, page 28 2: CISA Online Review Course, Module 1: The Process of Auditing Information Systems, Lesson 1.3: Audit Risk

 The greatest challenge to the alignment of business and IT is the lack of chief information officer (CIO) involvement in board meetings. The CIO is the senior executive responsible for overseeing the IT strategy, governance, and operations of the organization, and ensuring that they support the business objectives and needs. The CIO should be involved in board meetings to communicate the value and contribution of IT to the organization, to align the IT vision and direction with the business strategy and priorities, and to advocate for the IT resources and investments required to achieve the desired outcomes. The lack of CIO involvement in board meetings can result in a disconnect between business and IT, a loss of trust and confidence in IT, and missed opportunities for innovation and value creation. The other options are not as challenging as the lack of CIO involvement in board meetings, because they either do not affect the strategic alignment of business and IT, or theycanbe addressed by other means such as collaboration, negotiation, or escalation. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version)1, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1

 Computer performance is the measure of how well a computer system can execute tasks and applications within a given time frame. Computer performance can be affected by various factors, suchas hardware specifications, software configuration, network conditions, and user behavior. To analyze computer performance, it is important to use statistical metrics that can quantify the capacity utilization of the system resources, such as CPU, memory, disk, and network. These metrics can help identify the bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and anomalies that may degrade the performance of the system. Examples of such metrics include CPU utilization, memory usage, disk throughput, network bandwidth, and response time.

The other options are not as useful as statistical metrics when analyzing computer performance. An operations report of user dissatisfaction with response time is a subjective measure that may not reflect the actual performance of the system. Tuning of system software to optimize resource usage is a corrective action that can improve performance, but it is not a method of analysis. A report of off-peak utilization and response time is a limited snapshot that may not capture the peak performance or the average performance of the system.

References:

What is Computer Performance?

How to Measure Computer Performance