Isaca Updated CISA Exam Questions and Answers by giorgio

The auditor should verify whether a right-to-audit clause exists (B) next, because it is a contractual provision that grants the auditor the right to access and examine the records, systems, and processes of the SaaS provider. A right-to-audit clause is important for ensuring transparency, accountability, and compliance of the SaaS provider with the customer’s requirements and expectations. A right-to-audit clause can also help the auditor to identify and mitigate any risks or issues related to the SaaS agreement12.

Verifying whether IT management monitors the effectiveness of the environment (A) is not the next step, because it is a part of the ongoing monitoring andevaluation process, not the initial walk-through procedures. The auditor should first establish the scope, objectives, and criteria of the audit before assessing the performance and controls of the SaaS provider.

Verifying whether a third-party security attestation exists © is not the next step, because it is not a mandatory requirement for a SaaS agreement. A third-party security attestation is a report or certificate issued by an independent auditor that evaluates and validates the security controls and practices of the SaaS provider. A third-party security attestation can provide assurance and confidence to the customer, but it does not replace or eliminate the need for a right-to-audit clause3.

Verifying whether service level agreements (SLAs) are defined and monitored (D) is not the next step, because it is not directly related to the audit process. SLAs are contractual agreements that specify the quality, availability, and performance standards of the SaaS provider. SLAs are important for measuring and managing the service delivery and customer satisfaction, but they do not grant or guarantee the right to audit4.

 The best point in time to conduct a post-implementation review is after a full processing cycle. A post-implementation review is a process to evaluate whether the objectives of the project were met, how effective the project was managed, what benefits were realized, and what lessons were learned. A post-implementation review should be conducted after a full processing cycle, which is the period of time required for a system or process to complete all its functions and produce its outputs. This allows for a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the project’s performance, outcomes, impacts, and issues.

The other options are not as good as option A. Conducting a post-implementation review immediately after deployment is too soon, because it does not allow enough time for the project’s product or service to operate in the real world and generate measurable results. Conducting a post-implementation review after the warranty period is too late, because it may miss some important feedback or opportunities for improvement that could have been addressed earlier. Conducting a post-implementation review prior to the annual performance review is irrelevant, because it does not align with the project’s life cycle or objectives. References: What is Post-Implementation Review in Project Management?, What Is the Post-Implementation Review (PIR) Process?, Post-implementation review in project management?

This is because the auditor’s primary objective is to evaluate the adequacy and performance of the business continuity plan (BCP) in ensuring the continuity and resilience of the organization’s criticalfunctions and processesduring a disruption. The auditor should review the actual results and outcomes of the business response, such as the recovery time, recovery point, service level, customer satisfaction, and incident management, and compare them with the predefined objectives and criteria of the BCP. The auditor should also identify and analyze any gaps, issues, or lessons learned from the business response, and provide recommendations for improvement12.

Answer A. Confirm the BCP has been recently updated. is not the best answer, because it is not directly related to the auditor’s course of action. Confirming the BCP has been recently updated is a part of the audit planning and scoping process, not the audit execution or reporting process. The auditor should confirm the BCP has been recently updated before conducting the audit, not after revealing that a simulation test has not been performed. Moreover, confirming the BCP has been recently updated does not provide sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of the business response12.

Answer C. Raise an audit issue for the lack of simulated testing. is not the best answer, because it is not relevant to the auditor’s course of action. Raising an audit issue for the lack of simulated testing is a part of the audit reporting and follow-up process, not the audit execution or evaluation process. The auditor should raise an audit issue for the lack of simulated testing after reviewing the effectiveness of the business response, not before or instead of doing so. Furthermore, raising an audit issue for the lack of simulated testing does not address the root cause or impact of the problem, nor does it provide any constructive feedback or guidance for improvement12.

Answer D. Interview staff members to obtain commentary on the BCP’s effectiveness. is not the best answer, because it is not sufficient to guide the auditor’s course of action. Interviewing staff members to obtain commentary on the BCP’s effectiveness is a part of the audit evidence collection and analysis process, not the audit evaluation or conclusion process. The auditor should interview staff members to obtain commentary on the BCP’s effectiveness as one of the sources of information, not as the only or main source of information. Additionally, interviewing staff members to obtain commentary on the BCP’s effectiveness may be subjective, biased, or incomplete, and may not reflect the actual performance or outcomes of the business response12.

References:

Business Continuity Management Audit/Assurance Program

Business Continuity Plan Testing: Types and Best Practices

The best course of action for a security administrator who is called in the middle of the night by the on-call programmer who needs access to the live system is to give the programmer an emergency ID for temporary access and review the activity. This is because:

Requiring that a change request be completed and approved may delay the resolution of the problem and cause further damage or disruption to the system or business operations. A change request is a formal document that describes the proposed change, its rationale, impact, benefits, risks, costs, and approval process. A change request is usually required for planned or scheduled changes, not for emergency or urgent changes.

Giving the programmer read-only access to investigate the problem may not be sufficient or effective, as the programmer may need to perform actions or tests that require write or execute permissions. Read-only access means that the user can only view or copy data or files, but cannot modify or delete them.

Reviewing activity logs the following day and investigating any suspicious activity may not prevent or detect any unauthorized or malicious actions by the programmer in real time. Activity logs are records of events and actions that occur within a system or network. Activity logs can provide evidence and accountability for system activities, but they are not proactive or preventive controls.

Therefore, giving the programmer an emergency ID for temporary access and reviewing the activity is the best course of action, as it allows the programmer to access the live system and resolve the problem quickly, while also ensuring that the security administrator can monitor and verify the programmer’s activity and revoke the access when it is no longer needed. An emergency ID is a temporary account that grants a user elevated privileges or access to a system or resource for a specific purpose and duration. An emergency ID should be:

Created and authorized by a security administrator or manager

Assigned to a specific user and purpose

Limited in scope and time

Logged and audited

Revoked and deleted after use

Some of the best practices for emergency access to live systems are12:

Establish clear policies and procedures for requesting, approving, granting, monitoring, reviewing, and revoking emergency access

Define criteria and scenarios for emergency access, such as severity, impact, urgency, and risk

Implement controls to prevent unauthorized or unnecessary use of emergency access, such as multifactor authentication, approval workflows, alerts, notifications, and time restrictions

Implement controls to track and audit emergency access activities, such as logging, reporting, analysis, and investigation

Implement controls to ensure accountability and responsibility for emergency access users, such as attestation, justification, documentation, and feedback