CISA Reviews Questions

 Social engineering is a technique that exploits human weaknesses, such as trust, curiosity, or greed, to obtain information or access from a target. An employee is induced to reveal confidential IP addresses and passwords by answering questions over the phone is an example of a social engineering attack method, as it involves manipulating the employee into divulging sensitive information that can be used to compromise the network or system. A hacker walks around an office building using scanning tools to search for a wireless network to gain access, an intruder eavesdrops and collects sensitive information flowing through the network and sells it to third parties, and an unauthorized person attempts to gain access to secure premises by following an authorized person through a secure door are not examples of social engineering attack methods, as they do not involve human interaction or deception. References: [ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition], page 361.

The IS auditor’s primary concern when an organization has recently implemented a Voice-over IP (VoIP) communication system is a single point of failure for both voice and data communications. VoIP is a technology that allows voice communication over IP networks such as the internet. VoIP can offer benefits such as lower costs, higher flexibility, and better integration with other applications. However, VoIP also introduces risks such as dependency on network availability, performance, and security. If both voice and data communications share the same network infrastructure and devices, then a single point of failure can affect both services simultaneously and cause significant disruption to business operations. Therefore, the IS auditor should evaluate the availability and redundancy of the network components and devices that support VoIP communication. The other options are not as critical as a single point of failure for both voice and data communications, as they do not pose a direct threat to business continuity. References: CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 385

 Requiring written authorization for all payment transactions is the IS auditor’s best recommendation for a compensating control in an environment where segregation of duties (SoD) cannot be enforced in an accounts payable system. SoD is a principle that requires different individuals or functions to perform different tasks or roles in a business process, such as initiating, approving, recording and reconciling transactions. SoD reduces the risk of errors, fraud and misuse of resources by preventingany single person or function from having excessive or conflicting authority or responsibility. A compensating control is a control that mitigates or reduces the risk associated with the absence or weakness of another control. Requiring written authorization for all payment transactions is a compensating control that provides an independent verification and approval of each transaction before it is processed by the accounts payable system. This control can help to detect and prevent unauthorized, duplicate or erroneous payments, and to ensure compliance with policies and procedures. The other options are not as effective as option A, as they do not provide an independent verification or approval of payment transactions. Restricting payment authorization to senior staff members is a control that limits the number of people who can authorize payments, but it does not prevent them from initiating or processing payments themselves, which could violate SoD. Reconciling payment transactions with invoices is a control that verifies that the payments match the invoices, but it does not prevent unauthorized, duplicate or erroneous payments from being processed by the accounts payable system. Reviewing payment transaction history is a control that monitors and analyzes thepayment transactions after they have been processed by the accounts payable system, but it does not prevent unauthorized, duplicate or erroneous payments from occurring in the first place. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version) , Chapter 5: Protection of Information Assets, Section 5.2: Logical Access.

The most assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing with respect to the implementation of a new system can be obtained by running historical transactions through the new system. Historical transactions are transactions that have been processed and recorded by the old system in the past. Running historical transactions through the new system can provide the most assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing, bycomparing the results and outputs of the new system with those of the old system, and verifying whether they match or differ. This can help identify and resolve any errors or issues that may arise from the new system, such as data conversion, functionality, compatibility, etc. Comparing code between old and new systems is a possible way to obtain some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing with respect to the implementation of a new system, but it is not the most effective one. Code is a set of instructions or commands that define how a system operates or functions. Comparing code between old and new systems can provide some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing, by checking whether the logic, algorithms, or functions of the new system are consistent or equivalent with those of the old system. However, this may not be sufficient or reliable, as code may not reflect the actual performance or outcomes of the system, and may not detect any errors or issues that may occur at the data or user level. Reviewing quality assurance (QA) procedures is a possible way to obtain some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing with respect to the implementation of a new system, but it is not the most effective one. QA procedures are steps or activities that ensure that a system meets its quality standards and requirements, such as testing, verification, validation, etc. Reviewing QA procedures can provide some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing, by evaluating whether the new system has been properly tested and verified before implementation. However, this may not be adequate or accurate, as QA procedures may not cover all aspects or scenarios of loan application processing, and may not reveal any errors or issues that may arise after implementation. Loading balance and transaction data to the new system is a possible way to obtain some assurance over the completeness and accuracy of loan application processing with respect to the implementation of a new system, but it is not the most effective one. Balance and transaction data are data that reflect the status and history of loan applications in a system, such as amounts, dates, payments, etc. Loading balance and transaction data to the new system can provide some assurance over the completeness andaccuracy of loan application processing, by transferring data from the old system to the new system and ensuring that they are consistent and correct. However, this may not be enough or valid, as balance and transaction data may not represent all aspects or features of loan application processing, and may not indicate any errors or issues that may arise