Isaca Updated CISA Exam Questions and Answers by andrei

Assessing and tracking all compliance audit findings is the best way to support the effectiveness of a compliance program. This allows an organization to identify areas of non-compliance, take corrective action, and monitor improvements over time12. While implementing an awareness plan, using a governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) tool, and monitoring applicable regulations can contribute to a compliance program, they do not provide the same level of continuous improvement and effectiveness as assessing and tracking audit findings.

The most important part of a feasibility study is the economics1. A cost-benefit analysis of available products is crucial as it helps to understand the economic viability of the project1. It compares the costs of the project with the benefits it is expected to deliver, which is essential for making informed decisions1. Omitting this could lead to investments in hardware that may not provide the expected returns or meet the organization’s needs.

References:

The Components of a Feasibility Study - ProjectEngineer

 Implementing solutions to correct defects is a responsibility of the development function, not the quality assurance (QA) function. The QA function should ensure that the development process follows the established standards and methodologies, and that the defects are identified and reported. The QA function should not be involved in fixing the defects, as this would compromise its independence and objectivity. The other options are valid responsibilities of the QA function, and they should not raise concern for an IS auditor. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) 1, page 300.

 The IS audit manager should specifically review the detailed evidence of the successes and weaknesses of all contingency testing to substantiate the conclusions of the audit of the corporate disaster recovery test. This is because the detailed evidence can provide the audit manager with a clear and objective picture of how well the disaster recovery plan was executed, what issues or gaps were encountered, and what recommendations or actions were taken to address them. The detailed evidence can also help the audit manager to verify the accuracy, completeness, and validity of the audit findings, as well as to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the disaster recovery controls.

The other options are not as specific or relevant as the detailed evidence of all contingency testing. Overviews of interviews between data center personnel and the auditor may provide some useful information, but they are not sufficient to substantiate the conclusions without supporting evidence from the actual testing. Prior audit reports involving other corporate disaster recovery audits may provide some benchmarking or comparison data, but they are not directly related to the current audit scope and objectives. Summary memos reflecting audit opinions regarding noted weaknesses may provide some high-level insights, but they are not enough to substantiate the conclusions without detailed evidence to back them up.

References:

ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2019, p. 2411

Disaster Recovery Audit Work Program2