Visit here for our full Isaca CISA exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 81:
An IS auditor reviewing database security should be MOST concerned if which of the following is found?
A) Database access is logged and monitored
B) Database administrators have unrestricted access to production data
C) Strong passwords are enforced for database users
D) Database activity is reviewed monthly
Answer: B
Explanation:
Database administrators possessing unrestricted access to production data represents a critical security and control weakness that violates fundamental segregation of duties principles and creates significant risks including unauthorized data modification, fraud opportunities, privacy breaches, and inability to maintain audit trails with accountability. While database administrators require elevated privileges to perform system maintenance, backups, performance tuning, and schema modifications, unrestricted access to production data contents enables them to view, modify, or delete sensitive business information without detection or accountability. This privilege level exceeds what DBAs need for administrative functions and creates insider threat risks where malicious or negligent administrators could steal customer data, manipulate financial records, delete audit logs covering their activities, or perform other harmful actions. Best practices dictate implementing compensating controls including privileged access management solutions that provide temporary elevated access only when needed for specific administrative tasks, data masking or tokenization preventing DBAs from viewing actual sensitive data values while still enabling schema management, separation of DBA roles where different individuals handle production versus development environments, mandatory review and approval processes for production database changes, comprehensive audit logging of all DBA activities with logs stored externally where DBAs cannot modify them, and regular access reviews ensuring DBA privileges align with job responsibilities. Organizations should minimize standing privileges, implementing just-in-time access models where DBAs request and receive temporary elevated access only for approved maintenance windows with all activities during those windows subject to enhanced monitoring. Automated controls can prevent certain high-risk operations like bulk data exports or audit log deletions even by privileged accounts. Many compliance frameworks including PCI DSS, HIPAA, and SOX specifically require controls over privileged database access recognizing the risks unrestricted DBA access creates. The other options represent good security practices rather than concerns where access logging enables monitoring, strong passwords protect against unauthorized access, and monthly reviews provide oversight, though real-time monitoring would be preferable. Unrestricted DBA access fundamentally undermines data confidentiality, integrity, and accountability requiring immediate remediation through implementation of appropriate access controls and compensating detective controls.
Question 82:
Which of the following is the PRIMARY objective of implementing a data classification program?
A) Reduce data storage costs
B) Ensure appropriate protection controls based on data sensitivity
C) Simplify backup procedures
D) Accelerate data processing speeds
Answer: B
Explanation:
The primary objective of data classification programs focuses on ensuring that protection controls applied to organizational data align appropriately with each dataset’s sensitivity level, business value, regulatory requirements, and potential impact from unauthorized disclosure, modification, or loss. Classification schemes typically define categories such as public, internal use, confidential, and highly confidential or restricted, with each category specifying required security controls, handling procedures, storage requirements, transmission restrictions, access limitations, retention periods, and destruction methods. By systematically categorizing data based on sensitivity and criticality, organizations can implement proportionate protection avoiding both over-protection that wastes resources on low-value data and under-protection that inadequately secures sensitive information. For example, public information might allow unrestricted access and standard backup procedures, while highly confidential data such as trade secrets, personal financial information, or protected health information requires encryption at rest and in transit, strict access controls with multi-factor authentication, enhanced monitoring, segregated storage, and specialized backup and recovery procedures. Classification drives decisions about which data can reside in public cloud versus private infrastructure, what encryption standards apply, who can access specific datasets, whether data loss prevention tools should monitor transfers, and how long retention requirements mandate keeping data before secure destruction. Effective classification also supports compliance with regulations like GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI DSS that require organizations to identify and protect sensitive data categories through appropriate technical and procedural safeguards. The classification process typically involves data owners identifying their data’s sensitivity, applying classification labels either manually or through automated tools, and implementing controls mandated for each classification level. While data classification might indirectly reduce costs by avoiding over-protecting low-value data or simplify certain procedures through standardized handling for each category, these represent secondary benefits rather than the primary objective. The fundamental purpose remains ensuring security controls match data sensitivity implementing risk-based protection that efficiently allocates security resources to data requiring protection while avoiding unnecessary controls on non-sensitive information.
Question 83:
During an audit of change management procedures, an IS auditor finds that emergency changes are frequently implemented without following standard approval processes. What should the auditor recommend FIRST?
A) Eliminate all emergency changes
B) Implement a documented emergency change procedure with post-implementation review
C) Require the same approval process for all changes regardless of urgency
D) Outsource emergency change handling to external vendors
Answer: B
Explanation:
Implementing a documented emergency change procedure with mandatory post-implementation review represents the most practical and effective recommendation balancing business needs for rapid response to critical issues with governance requirements for change control and accountability. Emergency changes serve legitimate business purposes addressing urgent situations like critical security vulnerabilities, system failures affecting operations, or production issues causing significant business impact where standard change approval timelines would result in unacceptable delays and business losses. Completely eliminating emergency changes ignores operational realities and would force organizations to wait through standard approval cycles even when immediate action prevents major incidents, potentially causing more harm than controlled emergency responses. However, emergency changes do carry increased risks compared to standard changes due to compressed timeframes, limited testing, and reduced oversight, making proper governance essential. An effective emergency change procedure should define clear criteria for what constitutes a genuine emergency distinguishing urgent situations from poor planning or convenience, designate authorized personnel who can approve emergency changes typically senior IT management or change advisory board members, establish streamlined but documented approval processes that can complete quickly possibly through phone calls or emails with documented confirmation, require comprehensive documentation of what was changed and why even if captured after implementation, mandate immediate notification to stakeholders affected by emergency changes, specify testing requirements proportionate to urgency and risk, and most critically require post-implementation review within a short timeframe such as the next business day. Post-implementation review provides crucial governance examining whether the emergency classification was justified, validating that changes were implemented correctly and achieved desired results, identifying any issues or side effects requiring correction, ensuring complete documentation exists, confirming proper approvals were obtained even if retrospectively, and evaluating whether the situation revealed underlying problems requiring preventive measures. This review process maintains accountability deterring abuse of emergency procedures while recognizing that legitimate emergencies sometimes require rapid action. Organizations should track emergency change frequency and review trends to identify whether excessive emergency changes indicate process problems, inadequate planning, or procedure abuse requiring corrective action. Requiring identical approval for all changes regardless of urgency creates inflexibility preventing timely response to crises. Outsourcing emergency changes to external vendors introduces delays and removes control over critical responses. Documented emergency procedures with post-implementation governance provide the optimal balance enabling rapid response when genuinely needed while maintaining necessary oversight and accountability.
Question 84:
An IS auditor is reviewing an organization’s disaster recovery plan (DRP). Which of the following findings should be of GREATEST concern?
A) The DRP was tested one year ago
B) The DRP does not include contact information for key personnel
C) The DRP documentation is stored only at the primary site
D) Recovery time objectives are not formally defined
Answer: C
Explanation:
Storing disaster recovery plan documentation exclusively at the primary site represents a critical flaw that could render the entire plan unusable during actual disasters when the primary site becomes inaccessible due to fire, flood, natural disasters, or other catastrophic events that DRPs are designed to address. The fundamental purpose of disaster recovery planning involves preparing for scenarios where primary facilities, systems, or infrastructure become unavailable, requiring activation of recovery procedures from alternate locations. If the only copies of recovery documentation reside at the compromised primary site, responders cannot access the procedures, contact lists, system configurations, recovery sequences, vendor information, or technical details needed to execute recovery operations. This circular dependency creates a scenario where the disaster that necessitates invoking the DRP also prevents accessing the DRP itself, effectively nullifying months or years of planning effort. Best practices require maintaining multiple copies of DRP documentation in geographically diverse locations including the designated disaster recovery site where systems will be restored, offsite storage facilities with controlled access and environmental protection, secure cloud repositories accessible from any location with appropriate authentication, encrypted portable media stored with key personnel’s homes or alternate offices, and printed copies in safe locations accessible without electricity or network connectivity. Documentation should be regularly synchronized ensuring all copies reflect current procedures, contact information, system configurations, and dependencies as the environment evolves. During disaster scenarios, responders need immediate access to recovery procedures to minimize downtime and confusion, making documentation accessibility critical. While other findings represent weaknesses that require attention, they are less immediately critical where annual testing while not ideal is better than no testing and many organizations operate on annual test cycles, missing contact information is problematic but key personnel often know how to reach each other through alternate channels and contacts can sometimes be reconstructed, and undefined RTOs represent governance issues but experienced teams can still execute recovery operations. However, completely inaccessible documentation due to single-site storage fundamentally undermines the entire disaster recovery capability transforming a potentially executable plan into an unusable document. This finding requires immediate remediation through implementing geographically dispersed documentation storage with regular synchronization ensuring recovery teams can always access current procedures regardless of which facilities or systems are affected by disasters.
Question 85:
Which of the following is the MOST important consideration when evaluating the adequacy of an organization’s information security awareness program?
A) The percentage of employees who completed security training
B) The frequency of training sessions delivered annually
C) The measurable change in security-related behavior and incident rates
D) The number of security topics covered in training
Answer: C
Explanation:
Measuring actual changes in security-related employee behavior and corresponding reductions in security incident rates provides the most meaningful evaluation of security awareness program effectiveness because these outcomes demonstrate whether training translates into improved security practices and reduced organizational risk rather than merely measuring training delivery activities. Security awareness programs ultimately aim to modify employee behavior making users the human firewall that recognizes and appropriately responds to security threats including phishing attempts, social engineering, suspicious emails, insecure practices, policy violations, and security incidents requiring reporting. An effective program should produce observable results including reduced successful phishing simulations as employees learn to identify and report suspicious emails, decreased incidents of weak password selection or password sharing as users adopt secure authentication practices, increased reporting of security concerns and potential incidents as employees understand their role in security, fewer malware infections resulting from improved judgment about downloads and attachments, reduced data loss incidents as users better protect sensitive information, and lower rates of policy violations demonstrating internalized security practices. Organizations can measure behavioral changes through various methods including simulated phishing campaigns with tracking of click rates and reporting rates over time, security incident metrics examining trends in user-related incidents, security control bypass attempts monitoring policy circumvention behaviors, help desk tickets analyzing security-related questions and concerns indicating awareness levels, and periodic surveys or assessments testing security knowledge and attitudes. Comparing these metrics before and after training and tracking trends over time reveals whether the program effectively influences behavior. While completion rates, frequency, and topic coverage represent input measures showing training delivery, they don’t confirm effectiveness as employees might attend training but fail to apply learnings or training might cover irrelevant topics that don’t address actual threats. An organization could achieve 100% training completion covering numerous topics delivered quarterly yet still experience increasing incident rates if the training doesn’t resonate with employees or address real behavioral issues. Conversely, focused training on high-risk behaviors measured through improved incident metrics demonstrates genuine effectiveness even if delivery metrics seem modest. The outcomes-based evaluation approach aligns with risk management principles where security investments should demonstrably reduce risk rather than simply check compliance boxes. Effective security awareness programs continuously monitor behavioral indicators, use results to refine training content and delivery methods, and demonstrate measurable risk reduction justifying program investment through tangible improvements in organizational security posture.
Question 86:
An IS auditor discovers that developers have database administrator privileges in the production environment. What is the auditor’s BEST recommendation?
A) Document the issue and defer action until next audit
B) Immediately revoke all developer access without review
C) Implement segregation of duties by removing developer DBA privileges and establishing controlled change processes
D) Require developers to log all activities
Answer: C
Explanation:
Implementing proper segregation of duties by removing developer database administrator privileges in production environments and establishing controlled change processes through designated DBAs represents the comprehensive remediation addressing both the immediate control deficiency and underlying process gaps. Developers possessing production DBA privileges violates fundamental segregation of duties principles creating numerous risks including unauthorized code implementation bypassing quality assurance and change control processes, production data manipulation or theft with developers accessing sensitive customer or business data, fraud opportunities where developers could modify data benefiting themselves or others, incident concealment through developers deleting logs or evidence of their activities, inadequate testing with developers implementing changes without proper validation potentially causing outages or data corruption, and compliance violations with many regulations explicitly requiring separation between development and production access. The appropriate remediation involves several components including immediately removing production DBA privileges from developer accounts eliminating the inappropriate access, implementing role-based access control where developers receive appropriate access in development and test environments but not production, establishing formal change management procedures requiring developers to submit code for deployment by operations personnel, designating database administrators separate from development staff to handle production database changes, implementing deployment automation reducing manual access requirements through tools like CI/CD pipelines that deploy approved changes without direct developer access, creating exception processes for rare situations requiring developer production access with mandatory approval, supervision, and comprehensive logging, and implementing monitoring and alerting on any privileged activities in production environments. Organizations should conduct thorough review of past developer activities in production examining logs for any inappropriate or suspicious actions taken while improper access existed, assessing potential data exposure or integrity impacts. The control implementation should balance security with operational efficiency where legitimate needs for developers to diagnose production issues can be addressed through read-only access, masked data copies, or supervised access sessions rather than standing DBA privileges. Simply documenting the issue without remediation leaves significant risks unaddressed and fails the auditor’s responsibility to advocate for appropriate controls. Immediately revoking access without review might disrupt operations if developers currently perform critical functions requiring alternative staffing or process changes. Logging alone doesn’t prevent the inappropriate activities only enabling detection after the fact. The comprehensive approach removing inappropriate privileges while establishing proper processes ensures both immediate risk reduction and sustainable long-term control environment improvements.
Question 87:
Which of the following should be an IS auditor’s PRIMARY concern when reviewing a business continuity plan (BCP)?
A) The BCP document uses an outdated template format
B) Business impact analysis results are not documented
C) The BCP includes detailed technical recovery procedures
D) Senior management has approved the BCP
Answer: B
Explanation:
The absence of documented business impact analysis results represents the most critical concern because BIA forms the foundation upon which all business continuity and disaster recovery planning depends, providing the essential information about criticality, dependencies, recovery priorities, and resource requirements that drive plan development. Without properly conducted and documented BIA, organizations cannot effectively identify which business processes and systems are most critical, determine appropriate recovery time objectives and recovery point objectives based on business impact of downtime, prioritize recovery efforts to restore most critical functions first, identify dependencies between processes and systems affecting recovery sequences, allocate resources appropriately matching protection levels to business criticality, justify investments in business continuity capabilities by quantifying potential losses, or establish recovery strategies addressing actual business needs rather than arbitrary technical preferences. BIA methodology typically involves identifying critical business functions and processes supporting organizational mission and operations, assessing financial impacts of disruptions including revenue loss, regulatory penalties, contract violations, and recovery costs, evaluating operational impacts such as inability to deliver products or services, customer dissatisfaction, or market share loss, determining reputational and competitive impacts from publicized outages or service failures, identifying legal and regulatory consequences of compliance failures during disruptions, analyzing upstream and downstream dependencies where disruption of one process affects others, establishing maximum tolerable downtime beyond which impacts become catastrophic, and documenting recovery time objectives defining target restoration timeframes for each critical function. The documented BIA provides crucial inputs for developing recovery strategies, designing redundant systems, establishing backup procedures, and allocating continuity resources proportionate to business criticality. Without this foundation, BCP development becomes arbitrary and potentially ineffective addressing wrong priorities or missing critical requirements. Organizations might invest in recovering non-critical systems quickly while critical business functions remain down excessively long, or implement recovery procedures that don’t align with actual business process dependencies causing recovery failures despite plan execution. While document templates matter for usability and outdated formats should be modernized, template issues don’t affect plan effectiveness as fundamentally as missing BIA. Detailed technical procedures represent good documentation helping with execution though excessive technical detail might belong in separate runbooks rather than strategic BCP documents. Senior management approval provides necessary authority and resource commitment but approval of a plan based on inadequate BIA doesn’t make the plan effective. The BIA foundation must exist and be properly documented to ensure continuity planning addresses genuine business needs and priorities.
Question 88:
An IS auditor is evaluating logical access controls. Which of the following would be the STRONGEST control?
A) User IDs and passwords
B) Biometric authentication
C) Security tokens
D) Multi-factor authentication combining something you know and something you have
Answer: D
Explanation:
Multi-factor authentication combining different authentication factor types such as something you know like passwords or PINs with something you have like security tokens, smart cards, or mobile device authentication apps provides the strongest logical access control because compromise requires attackers to defeat multiple independent authentication mechanisms making unauthorized access significantly more difficult than single-factor approaches. Authentication factors fall into three primary categories including something you know such as passwords, PINs, or security questions, something you have like physical tokens, smart cards, mobile phones for SMS codes or authentication apps, or hardware security keys, and something you are represented by biometric characteristics including fingerprints, facial recognition, iris scans, or voice patterns. Single-factor authentication relying on only one factor type creates vulnerabilities where passwords can be guessed, stolen through phishing, captured by keyloggers, compromised in data breaches, or shared among users, physical tokens can be stolen or lost, and biometrics might be spoofed using various techniques depending on implementation quality. Multi-factor authentication significantly increases security because an attacker must compromise multiple independent factors simultaneously where stealing a password doesn’t enable access without also possessing the physical token or biometric, and stealing a physical token doesn’t grant access without knowing the associated password. This defense-in-depth approach provides protection even when individual factors are compromised. The most effective MFA implementations combine factors from different categories ensuring independence where something you know combined with something you have provides stronger protection than combining two knowledge factors like password and security question which might both be discovered through similar attack methods. Common strong MFA configurations include password plus hardware token generating one-time codes, password plus mobile app like Microsoft Authenticator or Google Authenticator, password plus SMS codes though SMS is considered weaker due to SIM swapping attacks, password plus smart card requiring card possession and PIN knowledge, or password plus biometric such as fingerprint or facial recognition though pure biometric alone is single-factor. Organizations implementing MFA must consider usability balancing security with user convenience where overly complex authentication might lead to circumvention or workarounds, backup authentication methods for situations where primary factors are unavailable, and appropriate MFA enforcement policies determining which systems and user roles require MFA. While passwords alone represent the weakest option being knowledge-only single factor vulnerable to numerous compromise methods, biometrics and tokens individually provide stronger single-factor authentication but still fall short of multi-factor protection. Multi-factor authentication combining knowledge and possession factors delivers optimal security appropriate for protecting sensitive systems and data in modern threat environments.
Question 89:
During a review of IT governance, an IS auditor finds that IT strategic planning is not formally aligned with business strategic objectives. What should the auditor recommend?
A) Eliminate IT strategic planning since it’s not aligned
B) Establish formal processes linking IT strategy to business objectives with regular review
C) Allow IT to develop strategy independently
D) Focus exclusively on short-term tactical IT projects
Answer: B
Explanation:
Establishing formal processes that explicitly link IT strategic planning to business strategic objectives with regular review and adjustment mechanisms represents the appropriate governance recommendation ensuring technology investments and initiatives support organizational goals and deliver business value rather than pursuing technology for its own sake. IT governance frameworks including COBIT emphasize alignment as a fundamental principle where IT strategy should directly derive from and support business strategy, with IT initiatives prioritized based on business value contribution, resources allocated to technology projects supporting strategic business objectives, IT capabilities developed enabling planned business capabilities, and IT performance measured against business outcome achievement. Effective alignment processes involve several components including regular structured communication between business executives and IT leadership ensuring mutual understanding of strategic direction and technology capabilities, formal IT strategic planning activities that explicitly reference business strategies identifying how technology initiatives support each business objective, business case requirements for major IT investments demonstrating expected business value and strategic contribution, IT steering committee or similar governance body including business and IT leadership reviewing significant initiatives for strategic alignment, periodic alignment reviews comparing IT project portfolios against business priorities identifying misalignments requiring adjustment, and integration of IT considerations into business strategic planning recognizing technology as a strategic enabler rather than support function. Documentation should clearly trace IT initiatives to specific business objectives showing the linkage and expected contribution. Metrics should measure both IT delivery performance and business outcome achievement attributable to technology initiatives. The alignment processes should be dynamic and continuous rather than one-time exercises because both business and technology environments evolve requiring regular reassessment and adjustment. Formal alignment mechanisms prevent common problems including IT pursuing interesting technologies that don’t address business needs, business strategies depending on IT capabilities that don’t exist or aren’t planned, resource conflicts where IT spreads capacity across too many initiatives diluting strategic project support, and missed opportunities where technology could enable new business capabilities but business doesn’t understand possibilities. Eliminating IT strategic planning would worsen the situation leaving technology direction completely unclear. Independent IT strategy development perpetuates misalignment. Focusing only on tactical projects neglects strategic IT capabilities requiring longer development horizons. Formal alignment processes create the governance structure ensuring IT operates as a strategic business partner delivering technology capabilities that enable organizational success.
Question 90:
Which of the following is the MOST important consideration when auditing cloud service providers?
A) The physical location of cloud data centers
B) The provider’s compliance with relevant regulations and standards
C) The cost of cloud services compared to on-premises
D) The age of the provider’s technology infrastructure
Answer: B
Explanation:
Provider compliance with relevant regulations and standards represents the most critical audit consideration because organizations remain legally and regulatorially responsible for protecting their data and maintaining compliance even when using cloud services, requiring assurance that cloud providers implement appropriate controls meeting regulatory obligations. Organizations operate under various regulatory frameworks depending on industry, geography, and data types including GDPR for European personal data, HIPAA for healthcare information, PCI DSS for payment card data, SOX for financial reporting systems, GLBA for financial institution customer data, and FedRAMP for US government data, each imposing specific security, privacy, and operational requirements that must be satisfied regardless of deployment model. When engaging cloud providers, organizations must verify provider controls meet these obligations through various means including reviewing third-party audit reports such as SOC 2 Type II reports examining security, availability, confidentiality, processing integrity, and privacy controls over a period demonstrating sustained compliance, industry-specific certifications like PCI DSS compliance for payment processing services or HITRUST for healthcare data, ISO 27001 certification indicating implementation of information security management systems, regulatory compliance attestations such as FedRAMP authorization for government cloud services, contractual commitments where providers agree to maintain specific controls and compliance obligations, and provider-specific security documentation detailing implemented controls and their operation. Auditors reviewing cloud providers should assess whether controls address relevant regulatory requirements for the organization’s specific obligations, examine audit reports for qualifications or exceptions potentially impacting compliance, verify report scope covers services being consumed as reports might address only certain service offerings, ensure reports are current and cover appropriate time periods, evaluate provider’s incident response and breach notification procedures meeting regulatory requirements, and assess data protection capabilities including encryption, access controls, and data residency meeting privacy and sovereignty requirements. The shared responsibility model in cloud computing requires clear understanding of which security controls the provider implements versus those remaining customer responsibility, with auditors ensuring organizations adequately address their portion. Provider compliance failures can directly cause customer compliance violations potentially resulting in regulatory penalties, breach notifications, customer data loss, or audit findings even though the deficiency existed at the provider. While data center location matters for data sovereignty and latency concerns, cost comparisons address business value but not risk management, and infrastructure age might affect reliability but is less critical than compliance, provider compliance directly determines whether organizations can rely on cloud services while meeting their regulatory obligations making this the primary audit focus when evaluating cloud providers.
Question 91:
An IS auditor conducting a post-implementation review of a major system implementation finds that user acceptance testing (UAT) was not performed. What is the auditor’s PRIMARY concern?
A) Increased project costs
B) Possible gaps between system functionality and business requirements
C) Extended project timelines
D) Inadequate system documentation
Answer: B
Explanation:
The absence of user acceptance testing creates significant risk that deployed systems fail to meet actual business requirements and user needs, potentially delivering functionality that doesn’t support intended business processes, lacks critical features users require, introduces workflow inefficiencies forcing workarounds, or confuses users due to unintuitive interfaces leading to reduced productivity, errors, and business disruption. UAT serves as the critical final validation phase where actual business users test the system in realistic scenarios confirming it performs required functions correctly, supports their business processes effectively, provides necessary data and reports, integrates properly with related systems, performs adequately under realistic load conditions, and delivers the business value that justified the investment. This testing phase represents the business side’s approval that the system is fit for purpose before production deployment, complementing technical testing that validates technical functionality, performance, and integration from IT perspectives. Without UAT, organizations deploy systems based solely on technical specifications and IT testing potentially missing critical gaps including requirements misunderstandings where development teams misinterpreted business needs building technically correct functionality that doesn’t meet actual requirements, scope gaps where important business requirements were never captured in specifications, usability issues where systems work correctly but prove too complex or confusing for typical users, workflow mismatches where system processes don’t align with how business actually operates requiring extensive workarounds, missing edge cases where testing covered normal scenarios but failed to address exceptions users regularly encounter, integration problems where the system works standalone but doesn’t properly connect with related systems or processes, performance issues where the system works correctly with test data but proves too slow with realistic data volumes, and data quality problems where reports contain incorrect or incomplete information. Deploying systems without UAT validation forces organizations into difficult positions where critical deficiencies only emerge in production requiring expensive remediation while users already depend on the system, potentially necessitating rollback to legacy systems causing business disruption, eroding user confidence in IT capabilities and change initiatives, increasing training requirements as users discover needed workarounds, and delaying realization of expected business benefits while issues are resolved. While increased costs, extended timelines, and inadequate documentation might result from skipped UAT, these represent secondary concerns compared to the fundamental risk of deploying systems that don’t meet business needs potentially causing operational problems, financial losses, and strategic initiative failures. The primary audit concern focuses on business requirement validation which UAT uniquely provides through actual user verification before production deployment.
Question 92:
When reviewing an organization’s patch management process, which of the following represents the GREATEST risk?
A) Patches are tested in a non-production environment before deployment
B) Critical patches are not prioritized differently from routine patches
C) Patch deployment is documented in change management logs
D) Automated tools are used for patch deployment
Answer: B
Explanation:
The failure to prioritize critical patches differently from routine patches represents the greatest risk because critical patches address actively exploited vulnerabilities or severe security flaws where delayed deployment leaves systems vulnerable to known attacks, potentially resulting in data breaches, system compromises, malware infections, or service disruptions that could have been prevented through timely patching. Effective patch management requires risk-based prioritization differentiating patches by severity, exploitability, and business impact to ensure the most dangerous vulnerabilities are addressed urgently while less critical patches follow standard deployment timelines. Critical patches typically address vulnerabilities with public exploits, actively being exploited in the wild, rated critical or high severity by vendors or CVS scoring, affecting Internet-facing or critical business systems, or capable of enabling remote code execution, privilege escalation, or data exfiltration. These patches demand expedited deployment within days or even hours depending on threat severity and system exposure, potentially bypassing some testing stages under emergency procedures with appropriate risk acceptance and enhanced monitoring. Treating all patches equally creates dangerous delays where critical security patches wait in standard monthly deployment cycles alongside minor bug fixes and feature updates, allowing attackers weeks to exploit known vulnerabilities in the organization’s environment. Many high-profile breaches resulted from organizations failing to promptly deploy available patches addressing vulnerabilities that attackers later exploited, sometimes months after patches were released. Risk-based prioritization processes should assess each patch considering vendor severity ratings, exploit availability and activity in the wild, CVSS scores quantifying vulnerability characteristics, affected system criticality and exposure, potential business impact from exploitation, and available mitigations if patching must be delayed. Critical patches might require emergency change processes, compressed testing focused on basic functionality verification, and rapid deployment to production systems within days. Less critical patches can follow standard monthly patching cycles with comprehensive testing. Organizations should define specific patch deployment timelines by severity category such as critical patches within 72 hours, high severity within one week, medium within one month, and low on regular maintenance schedules. The other options represent good practices rather than risks where testing before deployment prevents patch-induced outages, documentation provides change tracking and audit trails, and automation improves consistency and speed. The lack of critical patch prioritization fundamentally undermines security leaving systems vulnerable to the most dangerous threats despite patching processes existing.
Question 93:
An IS auditor reviewing encryption key management discovers that encryption keys are stored on the same server as the encrypted data. What should be the auditor’s PRIMARY recommendation?
A) Eliminate encryption entirely since it’s ineffective
B) Implement separate secure key management system with access controls
C) Document the current practice as acceptable
D) Increase key length to compensate for co-location
Answer: B
Explanation:
Implementing a separate secure key management system with appropriate access controls addresses the fundamental weakness of storing encryption keys with encrypted data which defeats encryption’s purpose by allowing anyone gaining system access to obtain both encrypted data and keys needed to decrypt it, rendering the encryption essentially useless for protecting data confidentiality. Encryption’s security depends on keeping cryptographic keys separate from encrypted data where attackers accessing encrypted data without keys cannot decrypt it, and separation ensures compromise of data storage doesn’t automatically compromise keys. When keys and data reside together on the same server, various attack scenarios bypass encryption including compromised server access where attackers gaining server access through vulnerabilities, stolen credentials, or misconfigurations can read both encrypted files and key files decrypting data trivially, backup compromise where server backups contain both data and keys allowing decryption of backup contents, physical media theft where stolen hard drives or decommissioned equipment contains both components, and insider threats where system administrators or others with server access can access keys and data simultaneously. Best practices require implementing dedicated key management infrastructure separate from application servers including hardware security modules providing tamper-resistant cryptographic processing and key storage meeting FIPS 140-2 or higher standards, key management services offering centralized key lifecycle management with separation between key storage and data storage, separate key management servers in different security zones from application and data servers, and cloud provider key management services when using cloud infrastructure maintaining keys in service provider’s secured key management infrastructure rather than application servers. Key management systems should implement strict access controls where only authorized services and minimal personnel can access keys, automated key rotation updating encryption keys regularly limiting exposure window if keys are compromised, key lifecycle management handling key generation, distribution, rotation, and secure destruction, separation of duties where different individuals handle key management versus system administration, comprehensive audit logging tracking all key access and operations, and encryption of keys themselves protecting keys at rest and in transit. Organizations should encrypt data at multiple layers including application-level encryption with keys managed separately, database encryption with keys external to database servers, and storage encryption with keys managed by hardware security modules or key management services. Simply increasing key length doesn’t address the fundamental control failure of co-location. Eliminating encryption removes protection entirely. Documenting the practice as acceptable ignores the significant security weakness. Implementing proper separation and secure key management delivers meaningful encryption protection.
Question 94:
Which of the following is the MOST important factor when determining audit scope for an IS audit?
A) The auditor’s personal preferences for certain audit areas
B) Risk assessment results identifying high-risk areas
C) The time since the last audit of each area
D) Budget allocated to the audit department
Answer: B
Explanation:
Risk assessment results identifying high-risk areas should primarily drive audit scope determination because IS audit resources are inherently limited requiring prioritization to focus efforts on areas where control failures pose the greatest potential impact to organizational objectives, data security, operations, or compliance. Risk-based audit planning follows a structured methodology beginning with comprehensive risk assessment examining the organization’s technology environment, business processes, security controls, compliance requirements, and threat landscape to identify areas of elevated risk requiring audit attention. Risk factors evaluated include inherent risk based on technology criticality, data sensitivity, system complexity, and business dependence, control risk reflecting the design and operating effectiveness of existing controls, past audit findings or known control weaknesses in specific areas, changes in technology, business processes, or regulatory requirements creating new risks, external threats such as emerging attack techniques targeting specific technologies, financial materiality where system failures could cause significant financial losses, regulatory compliance risks where violations could result in penalties or sanctions, and reputational risk from potential public incidents. The risk assessment process typically involves interviewing management to understand perceived risks and control concerns, reviewing prior audit reports and issue resolutions identifying recurring problems or slow remediation, analyzing security incidents and operational issues revealing control weaknesses, evaluating regulatory and industry developments affecting compliance obligations, assessing technology environment changes including new systems, cloud migrations, or infrastructure upgrades, considering third-party dependencies from vendors and service providers introducing supply chain risks, and reviewing business strategy changes potentially creating new technology risks. Documented risk assessment results enable audit scope prioritization focusing limited resources on highest-risk areas where control deficiencies most significantly threaten organizational objectives. An audit plan derived from thorough risk assessment provides defensible justification for scope decisions, ensures coverage of critical risk areas, and optimizes value delivered by the audit function. While time since last audit provides one input to risk assessment as unaudited areas accumulate risk over time, it shouldn’t independently drive scope. Budget constraints require consideration for realistic planning but shouldn’t prevent auditing highest-risk areas where resource gaps should be escalated to management. Auditor preferences are inappropriate factors that would result in arbitrary coverage missing critical risks. The risk-based approach ensures IS audit activities align with organizational priorities and audit resources focus on areas where independent assurance delivers greatest value by confirming critical controls operate effectively protecting essential systems and data.
Question 95:
An IS auditor is reviewing a service level agreement (SLA) between an organization and its cloud provider. What should be the auditor’s PRIMARY concern?
A) The SLA includes availability commitments of 99.9%
B) The SLA lacks measurable security and privacy requirements
C) The SLA is longer than 50 pages
D) The SLA allows the provider to change terms with 30 days notice
Answer: B
Explanation:
The absence of measurable security and privacy requirements in cloud service SLAs represents the primary concern because organizations remain responsible for protecting their data and maintaining security even when using cloud services, requiring contractual commitments and verification mechanisms ensuring providers implement appropriate controls meeting the organization’s security and compliance obligations. Cloud computing creates complex shared responsibility models where providers handle certain security aspects like physical security and infrastructure protection while customers remain responsible for data classification, access management, and application security, with the division varying by service model whether IaaS, PaaS, or SaaS. Effective cloud SLAs should explicitly address security and privacy through measurable requirements including specific security controls the provider commits to maintaining such as encryption standards for data at rest and in transit, encryption key management approaches and customer control over keys, access control mechanisms including authentication requirements and authorization models, network security including firewall configurations, DDoS protection, and network segmentation, vulnerability management and patching timelines for provider-managed infrastructure, security monitoring and logging with retention periods and customer access to logs, incident response procedures including detection, notification timelines, and investigation support, data location and sovereignty commitments specifying geographic storage locations meeting regulatory requirements, data backup and recovery capabilities with defined RPO and RTO metrics, personnel security including background checks and training for provider staff accessing customer data, compliance certifications the provider maintains such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, or industry-specific standards, audit rights allowing customers or their auditors to assess provider controls either directly or through third-party attestations, data deletion and sanitization procedures when services terminate ensuring complete data removal, and privacy commitments regarding data usage, disclosure, and handling meeting GDPR, CCPA, or other applicable privacy regulations. These requirements must be measurable and verifiable through specific metrics, regular reporting, or audit evidence rather than vague commitments to maintain reasonable security. Without contractual security obligations, organizations have no recourse when provider security proves inadequate, cannot verify controls meet their risk tolerance or compliance requirements, face difficulties during regulatory audits explaining how cloud data is protected, lack assurance that sensitive data receives appropriate protection, and cannot hold providers accountable for security failures or breaches. Many organizations discover too late that their cloud providers’ security practices don’t meet their needs or regulatory obligations, facing difficult migrations or compliance violations. While 99.9% availability represents a standard commitment appropriate for many services though more critical systems might require higher availability, document length alone doesn’t indicate quality as comprehensive SLAs covering necessary topics appropriately might be lengthy, and 30-day change notification is reasonable provided customers can terminate without penalty if changes are unacceptable. The absence of specific measurable security and privacy requirements represents a fundamental gap in contractual protection for the organization’s most critical concern when using cloud services.
Question 96:
During a review of application controls, an IS auditor finds that input validation is performed only on the client side. What is the GREATEST risk associated with this finding?
A) Slower application performance
B) Increased development complexity
C) Users can bypass validation by manipulating client-side code or requests
D) Higher bandwidth consumption
Answer: C
Explanation:
Client-side only input validation creates critical security vulnerabilities because users or attackers can easily bypass client-side controls by manipulating browser code, intercepting and modifying HTTP requests, or submitting data directly to server endpoints bypassing the client interface entirely, allowing injection of malicious input that the application processes without proper validation potentially causing SQL injection, cross-site scripting, command injection, buffer overflows, or business logic bypasses. Client-side validation implemented through JavaScript, HTML5 form validation, or other browser-based mechanisms provides excellent user experience through immediate feedback on input errors without requiring server round-trips, reduces unnecessary server load by catching obvious errors before submission, and improves application responsiveness giving users instant validation feedback as they complete forms. However, client-side validation provides no security protection because it operates in an environment completely controlled by users where technically skilled users or attackers can disable JavaScript, modify JavaScript validation code, use browser developer tools to alter form validation rules, intercept HTTP requests with proxy tools like Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP and modify data after client validation, craft raw HTTP requests bypassing the application interface entirely, or use automated tools to submit data programmatically without interacting with the user interface. Relying solely on client-side validation creates numerous attack vectors including SQL injection where attackers submit SQL commands in input fields that client validation might accept but server processing incorporates into database queries enabling data theft or manipulation, cross-site scripting where attackers inject JavaScript code that client validation permits but the application later displays to other users executing malicious scripts in their browsers, command injection where input fields contain operating system commands the server executes, path traversal where file path inputs access unintended files or directories, business logic bypasses where attackers submit data values outside expected ranges like negative quantities, excessive discounts, or unauthorized features, and denial of service through malformed input causing application crashes or resource exhaustion. Best practices require implementing defense in depth with validation at multiple layers including client-side validation for user experience and immediate feedback, server-side validation as the primary security control validating all input regardless of client-side checks, using parameterized queries or prepared statements preventing SQL injection, implementing output encoding preventing cross-site scripting, applying whitelist validation accepting only known good input rather than blacklist approaches trying to block bad input, and validating data type, length, format, and range constraints. Server-side validation must never trust client-supplied data regardless of client-side validation because the client environment is fundamentally untrusted. Performance, development complexity, and bandwidth represent minor concerns compared to the critical security vulnerabilities client-only validation creates by allowing malicious input to reach backend systems without proper security validation.
Question 97:
An IS auditor reviewing IT vendor management finds that vendor security assessments are only performed before initial contract signing. What should the auditor recommend?
A) Discontinue all vendor relationships immediately
B) Implement periodic reassessments throughout the vendor relationship lifecycle
C) Reduce the rigor of initial assessments
D) Eliminate vendor security assessments entirely
Answer: B
Explanation:
Implementing periodic vendor security reassessments throughout the relationship lifecycle addresses the reality that vendor security postures change over time due to security incidents they experience, changes in their infrastructure or processes, mergers and acquisitions affecting their operations, personnel turnover impacting their security capabilities, evolution of threat landscapes requiring new controls, regulatory requirement changes demanding compliance updates, and degradation of controls without ongoing vigilance, making initial assessments insufficient for ongoing risk management throughout potentially multi-year vendor relationships. Initial vendor security assessments conducted during procurement evaluate vendor security controls, policies, and practices to determine if they meet organizational security requirements and risk tolerance before contractual commitment. However, a favorable initial assessment provides only point-in-time assurance that becomes outdated as conditions change and provides no visibility into ongoing security practices, incident responses, or control degradation during the relationship. Effective vendor risk management requires continuous monitoring and periodic reassessment through several mechanisms including annual or periodic security assessments proportionate to vendor criticality and data sensitivity where high-risk vendors handling sensitive data undergo comprehensive annual assessments while lower-risk vendors receive lighter reviews every two to three years, continuous monitoring of vendor security incidents, breaches, or control failures through security news monitoring, breach notification requirements, and industry threat intelligence, regular review of vendor audit reports such as SOC 2 reports where applicable ensuring reports remain current and cover relevant controls, security questionnaire updates having vendors periodically confirm continued compliance with security requirements, vendor performance reviews incorporating security metrics into periodic business performance evaluations, incident-driven reassessments when vendors experience security incidents or significant changes, and contractual rights to audit allowing customer assessment of vendor controls as needed. The reassessment scope should consider any changes in the relationship such as expanded services, new data types being processed, or additional system interconnections increasing risk. Frequency should match vendor risk levels where critical vendors with access to highly sensitive data or critical systems undergo more frequent and rigorous reassessments than vendors providing less critical services. Organizations should maintain vendor risk registers tracking assessment dates, results, identified issues, remediation status, and next scheduled reviews ensuring no vendor relationships go unreviewed for extended periods. Contractual provisions should require vendors to notify customers of material security changes, incidents, or control failures enabling risk-based reassessment triggers. Eliminating vendor relationships entirely would disrupt business operations and most organizations necessarily depend on third-party vendors. Reducing initial assessment rigor weakens upfront protection. Eliminating assessments entirely ignores third-party risk. Periodic ongoing reassessment provides the continuous vigilance necessary for managing evolving vendor security risks throughout multi-year business relationships.
Question 98:
Which of the following is the MOST effective control to prevent unauthorized changes to production data?
A) Reviewing change logs weekly
B) Implementing strict logical access controls with segregation of duties
C) Encrypting production data
D) Creating frequent data backups
Answer: B
Explanation:
Implementing strict logical access controls combined with proper segregation of duties represents the most effective preventive control against unauthorized production data changes by restricting system access to authorized personnel only and ensuring no individual can both initiate and approve critical data modifications without additional oversight or approval. Logical access controls encompass multiple security layers including user authentication verifying user identity through passwords, multi-factor authentication, or biometric credentials, authorization determining which resources and functions each authenticated user can access based on role-based access control or attribute-based policies, least privilege principles granting users only minimum access necessary for their job functions, privileged access management for administrative accounts requiring elevated access, and access reviews periodically validating that user permissions remain appropriate for current job responsibilities. Segregation of duties prevents any single individual from controlling all aspects of critical processes where different people handle data entry, authorization, processing, and verification reducing fraud risk and error likelihood through independent oversight at each step. In data modification contexts, segregation might require different individuals to prepare data changes, approve changes, implement changes in production, and verify change results preventing someone from unilaterally modifying critical data without appropriate authorization and oversight. Technical controls enforcing segregation include workflow systems requiring multi-party approval for sensitive operations, database permissions preventing users from both preparing and approving changes, and audit logging recording who performed each action enabling accountability and detection of policy violations. Effective access controls also include periodic access recertification where managers review and approve subordinate access rights ensuring permissions remain appropriate as job responsibilities change, timely access removal when employees change roles or leave the organization, separation between production and development environments preventing developers from accessing production data directly, and privileged session monitoring recording administrative activities for review. The preventive nature of access controls stops unauthorized changes before they occur by denying unauthorized users the ability to modify data in the first place, which is more effective than detective controls that identify unauthorized changes after the fact. Change log reviews represent a detective control useful for identifying violations but occurring after unauthorized changes already affected data integrity. Encryption protects data confidentiality preventing unauthorized viewing but doesn’t prevent authorized users from making unauthorized modifications. Backups enable recovery after unauthorized changes but don’t prevent the changes or data integrity issues that might go undetected between backup and discovery. Strong logical access controls with segregation of duties provide the fundamental preventive security layer stopping unauthorized data modifications at the source by ensuring only properly authorized individuals can make data changes with appropriate oversight and accountability mechanisms preventing unilateral unauthorized modifications.
Question 99:
An IS auditor is reviewing an organization’s bring your own device (BYOD) policy. Which of the following should be the auditor’s GREATEST concern?
A) Personal devices are newer than company-issued devices
B) The organization has no ability to remotely wipe corporate data from lost or stolen personal devices
C) BYOD devices use various operating systems
D) Employees prefer using personal devices over company equipment
Answer: B
Explanation:
The inability to remotely wipe corporate data from personal devices represents the greatest security concern in BYOD environments because lost or stolen devices containing corporate data could result in data breaches, intellectual property theft, privacy violations, or compliance failures if organizations cannot remotely remove corporate data when devices are no longer secure or employees leave the organization. BYOD programs create unique security challenges because organizations must balance employee privacy rights regarding personal devices with the need to protect corporate data accessed or stored on those devices, implement security controls appropriate for business data while respecting personal device ownership, and maintain data protection capabilities despite not fully controlling device hardware, operating system, or application environments. Mobile device management or mobile application management solutions provide essential capabilities for BYOD security including remote wipe functionality allowing organizations to delete corporate data from lost, stolen, or decommissioned devices preventing data exposure, selective wipe capabilities removing only corporate applications and data while preserving personal content respecting employee privacy, device encryption requirements ensuring data protection at rest even if device falls into unauthorized hands, compliance enforcement requiring passcodes, encryption, and security updates before allowing corporate access, application management controlling which applications can access corporate data and preventing data leakage to unauthorized apps, containerization separating corporate and personal data into distinct secure zones preventing commingling, geolocation capabilities helping locate lost devices or verifying device location for compliance purposes, and network access control preventing non-compliant devices from accessing corporate resources. Without remote wipe capability, organizations face several critical risks including inability to protect data when employees lose devices which statistically happens with millions of mobile devices annually, data breaches when devices are stolen with attackers potentially bypassing device security to access corporate information, terminated employee scenarios where former employees retain devices with corporate data after employment ends, and compliance violations where regulations require organizations to maintain control over sensitive data including ability to ensure deletion when appropriate. Many data protection regulations including GDPR, HIPAA, and various data breach notification laws require organizations to protect personal and sensitive data with appropriate technical controls including the ability to prevent unauthorized access when devices are lost or stolen. The absence of remote wipe capability significantly increases data breach likelihood and potential compliance penalties. Device age and variety represent minor concerns that don’t directly impact security where newer personal devices might actually provide better security than aging corporate equipment, diverse operating systems create some management complexity but can be addressed through cross-platform MDM solutions, and employee preferences for personal devices are irrelevant to security as long as appropriate controls exist. Remote wipe capability represents a fundamental security control essential for protecting corporate data in BYOD environments where organizations cannot physically control device hardware requiring technical capabilities to protect data remotely when devices are compromised or no longer authorized.
Question 100:
During an audit of a financial trading system, an IS auditor discovers that transaction logs are automatically deleted after 30 days. What should be the auditor’s PRIMARY concern?
A) Increased storage costs from longer retention
B) Inability to support audit trails, investigations, and regulatory compliance
C) Faster system performance from smaller log files
D) Simplified backup processes
Answer: B
Explanation:
The automatic deletion of transaction logs after only 30 days creates critical risks regarding audit trails, forensic investigations, and regulatory compliance because many regulations require retaining financial transaction records for periods ranging from three to seven years, and premature log deletion eliminates evidence needed for auditing financial activities, investigating suspicious transactions or fraud, responding to regulatory inquiries, resolving transaction disputes, and reconstructing system activities during incident response. Transaction logs serve multiple essential purposes including providing complete audit trails documenting all system activities and data modifications enabling financial audits and compliance verification, enabling forensic analysis during security investigations to determine attack timelines, methods, and impacts, supporting fraud investigations requiring review of historical transaction patterns and anomalies, facilitating regulatory examinations where auditors require evidence of control effectiveness over extended periods, enabling dispute resolution when customers or counterparties question transaction accuracy or timing, and providing data for business analysis and operational reviews examining long-term transaction trends and system usage patterns. Regulatory frameworks governing financial systems typically mandate specific log retention periods where SOX requires certain financial system logs for at least seven years supporting financial statement audits, SEC rules require broker-dealers and investment advisers to retain records for specified periods typically three to seven years, PCI DSS requires at least one year of payment card transaction logs with three months immediately available, banking regulations typically require transaction records for five to seven years, anti-money laundering regulations require suspicious activity tracking for five years, and securities regulations mandate trade record retention for six years. The 30-day deletion period falls dramatically short of these requirements exposing the organization to regulatory violations, potential penalties, failed audits, and inability to conduct proper investigations. Organizations discovering frauds or security incidents often need to analyze patterns over months or years to understand incident scope, identify perpetrators, quantify losses, and implement preventive measures, which becomes impossible with 30-day log retention. Effective log management policies should define retention periods based on regulatory requirements, business needs, and legal obligations, typically retaining financial transaction logs for seven years or longer matching the longest applicable requirement. Logs should transition to archival storage after active retention periods reducing costs while maintaining accessibility for long-term requirements. Storage costs represent a necessary expense for regulatory compliance and risk management where modern compression and archival techniques make long-term log storage economically viable. Performance and backup simplification are operational considerations subordinate to fundamental requirements for audit trails and compliance. The 30-day deletion period represents a critical control deficiency requiring immediate remediation through implementing appropriate retention policies, recovering any historical logs still available from backups, and ensuring future logs meet regulatory retention requirements preventing compliance violations and enabling proper oversight of financial system activities.
