Isaca Updated CISA Exam Questions and Answers by artie

 The greatest concern for an IS auditor when a post-implementation review was conducted by issuing a survey to users is that the survey questions did not address the scope of the business case. A post-implementation review is a process of evaluating the outcomes and benefits of a project after it has been completed and implemented. A post-implementation review can help to assess whether the project met its objectives, delivered its expected value, and satisfied its stakeholders1. A survey is a method of collecting feedback and opinions from users or other stakeholders about their experience and satisfaction with the project. A survey can help to measure the user acceptance, usability, and functionality of the project deliverables2. A business case is a document that justifies the need for a project based on its expected benefits, costs, risks, and alternatives. A business case defines the scope, objectives, and requirements of the project and provides a basis for its approval and initiation3. Therefore, an IS auditor should be concerned if the survey questions did not address the scope of the business case, as it may indicate that the post-implementation review was not comprehensive, relevant, or aligned with the project goals. The other options are less concerning or incorrect because:

• A. The survey results were not presented in detail to management is not a great concern for an IS auditor when a post-implementation review was conducted by issuing a survey to users, as it is more of a communication or reporting issue than an audit issue. While presenting the survey results in detail to management may help to inform them about the project performance and outcomes, it does not affect the validity or quality of the post-implementation review itself.
• C. The survey form template did not allow additional feedback to be provided is not a great concern for an IS auditor when a post-implementation review was conducted by issuing a survey to users, as it is more of a design or format issue than an audit issue. While allowing additional feedback to be provided may help to capture more insights or suggestions from users, it does not affect the validity or quality of the post-implementation review itself.
• D. The survey was issued to employees a month after implementation is not a great concern for an IS auditor when a post-implementation review was conducted by issuing a survey to users, as it is more of a timing or scheduling issue than an audit issue. While issuing the survey to employees sooner after implementation may help to collect more accurate and timely feedback from users, it does not affect the validity or quality of the post-implementation review itself. References: Post Implementation Review - ISACA, Survey - ISACA, Business Case - ISACA

The best recommendation for improving IT governance within the organization is to implement key performance indicators (KPIs). KPIs are measurable values that show how effectively the organization is achieving its key business objectives. KPIs can help the organization to monitor and evaluate the performance, efficiency, and alignment of its IT processes and resources with its business goals and strategies1.

The other options are not as effective as implementing KPIs for improving IT governance. Option B, implementing annual third-party audits, is a good practice but may not be sufficient or timely to identify and address the issues or gaps in IT governance. Option C, benchmarking organizational performance against industry peers, is a useful technique but may not reflect the specific needs and expectations of the organization’s stakeholders. Option D, requiring executive management to draft IT strategy, is a necessary step but not enough to ensure that IT governance is implemented and monitored throughout the organization.

The best recommendation by the IS auditor for finding that application servers had inconsistent security settings leading to potential vulnerabilities is to perform a configuration review. A configuration review is an audit procedure that involves examining and verifying the security settings and parameters of application servers against predefined standards or best practices. A configuration review can help to identify and remediate any deviations, inconsistencies, or misconfigurations that may expose the application servers to unauthorized access, exploitation, or compromise6. A configuration review can also help to ensure compliance with security policies and regulations, as well as enhance the performance and availability of application servers. The other options are less effective or incorrect because:

• A. Improving the change management process is not the best recommendation by the IS auditor for finding that application servers had inconsistent security settings leading to potential vulnerabilities, as it does not address the root cause of the problem or provide a specific solution. While improving the change management process may help to prevent future inconsistencies or misconfigurations in application server settings, it does not ensure that the existing ones are detected and corrected.
• B. Establishing security metrics is not the best recommendation by the IS auditor for finding that application servers had inconsistent security settings leading to potential vulnerabilities, as it does not address the root cause of the problem or provide a specific solution. While establishing security metrics may help to measure and monitor the security performance and posture of application servers, it does not ensure that the existing inconsistencies or misconfigurations in application server settings are detected and corrected.
• C. Performing a penetration test is not the best recommendation by the IS auditor for finding that application servers had inconsistent security settings leading to potential vulnerabilities, as it does not address the root cause of the problem or provide a specific solution. While performing a penetration test may help to simulate and evaluate the impact of an attack on application servers, it does not ensure that the existing inconsistencies or misconfigurations in application server settings are detected and corrected. References: Configuring system to use application server security - IBM, Application Security Risk: Assessment and Modeling - ISACA, Five Key Components of an Application Security Program - ISACA, ISACA Practitioner Guidelines for Auditors - SSH, SCADA Cybersecurity Framework - ISACA

Access controls for source libraries are the features of a library control software package that would protect against unauthorized updating of source code. Access controls are the mechanisms that regulate who can access, modify, or delete the source code stored in the source libraries. Source libraries are the repositories that contain the source code files and their versions. By implementing access controls for source libraries, the library control software package can prevent unauthorized or malicious users from tampering with the source code and compromising its integrity, security, or functionality1.

The other options are not as effective as access controls for source libraries in protecting against unauthorized updating of source code. Option A, required approvals at each life cycle step, is a good practice but may not be sufficient to prevent unauthorized updates if the approval process is bypassed or compromised. Option B, date and time stamping of source and object code, is a useful feature but may not prevent unauthorized updates if the date and time stamps are altered or ignored. Option D, release-to-release comparison of source code, is a helpful feature but may not prevent unauthorized updates if the comparison results are not reviewed or acted upon.

References:

• ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2019
• ISACA, CISA Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription
• How to protect your source code from attackers2
• How to Stop Unauthorized Use of Open Source Code