Isaca Updated CISA Exam Questions and Answers by zack

This is the most helpful method for measuring benefits realization for a new system, because it involves evaluating the actual outcomes and impacts of the system after it has been implemented and used for a certain period of time. A post-implementation review can compare the actual benefits with the expected benefits that were defined in the business case or the benefits realization plan, and identify any gaps, issues, or opportunities for improvement. A post-implementation review can also assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of the system’s users, stakeholders, and customers, and provide feedback and recommendations for future enhancements or changes.

The other options are not as helpful as post-implementation review for measuring benefits realization for a new system:

Function point analysis. This is a technique that measures the size and complexity of a software system based on the number and types of functions it provides. Function point analysiscan help estimate the cost, effort, and time required to develop, maintain, or enhance a software system, but it does not measure the actual benefits or value that the system delivers to the organization or its users.

Balanced scorecard review. This is a strategic management tool that measures the performance of an organization or a business unit based on four perspectives: financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth. A balanced scorecard review can help align the organization’s vision, mission, and goals with its activities and outcomes, but it does not measure the specific benefits or impacts of a new system.

Business impact analysis (BIA). This is a process that identifies and evaluates the potential effects of a disruption or disaster on the organization’s critical business functions and processes. A BIA can help determine the recovery priorities, objectives, and strategies for the organization in case of an emergency, but it does not measure the benefits or value of a new system.

The correct answer is C. The consolidated responsibilities do not allow for appropriate separation of duties.

The primary risk is that too many critical responsibilities are concentrated in one individual. This creates a segregation/separation of duties issue, because one person may be able to initiate, approve, implement, and monitor critical IT activities without independent review. In IT, this could allow unauthorized changes, inappropriate access, fraud, errors, or malicious actions to occur without timely detection.

ISACA defines segregation/separation of duties as a basic internal control that prevents or detects errors and irregularities by assigning incompatible responsibilities to different individuals. ISACA also notes that SoD helps ensure no single person is in a position to introduce fraudulent or malicious code without detection.

Option A is not the best answer because resource optimization may be affected, but the major control risk is excessive authority and incompatible duties. Option B is incorrect because the issue is not limited authority; the concern is too much combined authority. Option D is a valid secondary concern because succession planning may be weakened when knowledge is concentrated in one person, but CISA questions usually prioritize the control risk of inadequate separation of duties over staffing continuity concerns.

This maps mainly to Governance and Management of IT because the issue relates to organizational structure, IT governance, resource management, roles, responsibilities, and control ownership. ISACA’s CISA Exam Content Outline includes organizational structure, IT governance, IT resource management, and determining whether ownership of IT risk, controls, and standards has been defined.

 The best option for ensuring confidentiality through the use of asymmetric encryption is to encrypt a message with the recipient’s public key (option A). This is because:

Asymmetric encryption, also known as public-key cryptography, is a type of encryption that uses a pair of keys to encrypt and decrypt data. The pair of keys includes a public key, which can be shared with anyone, and a private key, which is kept secret by the owner12.

In asymmetric encryption, the sender uses the recipient’s public key to encrypt the data. The recipient then uses their private key to decrypt the data. This approach allows for secure communication between two parties without the need for both parties to have the same secret key12.

Encrypting a message with the recipient’s public key ensures that only the recipient can decrypt it with their private key. This provides confidentiality, which means that the message is protected from unauthorized access or disclosure12.

Encrypting a message with the sender’s private key (option B) does not ensure confidentiality, but rather authentication, which means that the message can be verified as coming from the sender. This is because anyone can decrypt the message with the sender’s public key, but only the sender can encrypt it with their private key12.

Encrypting a message with the sender’s public key (option C) or the recipient’s private key (option D) does not make sense, as it would render the message unreadable by both parties. This is because neither party has the corresponding key to decrypt it12.

Therefore, the best option for ensuring confidentiality through the use of asymmetric encryption is to encrypt a message with the recipient’s public key (option A), as this ensures that only the recipient can decrypt it with their private key.

The best recommendation to prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers by accounts payable employees is dual control. Dual control is a segregation of duties control that requires two or more individuals to perform or authorize a transaction or activity. Dual control can prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers by requiring independent verification and approval of payment requests, amounts, and recipients by different accounts payable employees. The other options are not as effective as dual control in preventing fraudulent electronic funds transfers, as they do not involve independent checks or approvals. Periodic vendor reviews are detective controls that can help identify any irregularities or anomalies in vendor payments, but they do not prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers from occurring. Independent reconciliation is a detective control that can help compare and confirm payment records with bank statements, but it does not prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers from occurring. Re-keying of monetary amounts is an input control that can help detect any errors or discrepancies in payment amounts, but it does not prevent fraudulentelectronic funds transfers from occurring. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2