Isaca Updated CISA Exam Questions and Answers by kacper

 The main purpose of an information security management system (ISMS) is to reduce the frequency and impact of information security incidents. An ISMS is a systematic approach to managing information security risks, policies, procedures, and controls within an organization. An ISMS aims to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information assets, as well as to comply with relevant laws and regulations. The other options are not the main purpose of an ISMS, but rather some of its possible benefits or components. References:

CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 7, Section 7.11

CISA Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, Question ID 205

 The auditor’s next course of action should be to evaluate the appropriateness of the remedial action taken by the auditee. The auditor should assess whether the alternative approach taken by the auditee is effective, efficient, and aligned with the audit objectives and recommendations. The auditor should also consider the impact of the change on the audit scope, criteria, and risk assessment. Conducting a risk analysis incorporating the change, reporting results of the follow-up to the audit committee, and informing senior management of the change in approach are possible subsequent actions that the auditor may take after evaluating the appropriateness of the remedial action taken. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version): Chapter 1 - Information Systems Auditing Process

Reviewing the last compile date of production programs is the most efficient way to detect unauthorized changes to production programs, as it can quickly identify any discrepancies between the expected and actual dates of program modification. The last compile date is a timestamp that indicates when a program was last compiled or translated from source code to executable code. Any changes to the source code would require a recompilation, which would update the last compile date. The IS auditor can compare the last compile date of production programs with the authorizedchange requests and reports to verify that only approved changes were implemented. The other options are not as efficient as option A, as they are more time-consuming, labor-intensive or error-prone. Manually comparing code in production programs to controlled copies is a method of verifying that the code in production matches the code in a secure repository or library, but it requires access to both versions of code and a tool or technique to compare them line by line. Periodically running and reviewing test data against production programs is a method of verifying that the programs produce the expected outputs and results, but it requires designing, executing and evaluating test cases for each program. Verifying user management approval of modifications is a method of verifying that the changes to production programs were authorized and documented, but it does not ensure that the changes were implemented correctly or accurately. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 4: Information Systems Operations and Business Resilience, Section 4.3: Change Management Practices.

The most important determining factor when establishing appropriate timeframes for follow-up activities related to audit findings is the remediation dates included in management responses. The IS auditor should ensure that the follow-up activities are aligned with the agreed-upon action plans and deadlines that management has committed to in response to the audit findings. The follow-up activities should verify that management has implemented the corrective actions effectively and in a timely manner, and that the audit findings have been resolved or mitigated.

The other options are less important factors for establishing timeframes for follow-up activities:

Availability of IS audit resources. This is a practical factor that may affect the scheduling and execution of follow-up activities, but it should not override the priority and urgency of verifying management’s corrective actions.

Peak activity periods for the business. This is a factor that may affect the availability and cooperation of auditees during follow-up activities, but it should not delay or postpone the verification of management’s corrective actions beyond reasonable limits.

Complexity of business processes identified in the audit. This is a factor that may affect the scope and depth of follow-up activities, but it should not affect the timeframe for verifying management’s corrective actions.