Download Full Version CISA Isaca Exam

The first step in an incident response plan is typically preparation12. However, among the options provided, validating the incident would be the first step. This involves confirming that a security event is actually an incident3. It’s important to verify the event to avoid wasting resources on false positives.

References:

Incident Response Plan: Frameworks and Steps - CrowdStrike

What is Incident Response? Plan and Steps | Microsoft Security

What Are the Phases of an Incident Response Plan? - ISC2 Blog

A monitored mantrap at entrance and exit points would be the most effective compensating control in this scenario. A mantrap is a physical security access control system comprising a small space having two sets of interlockingdoors such that the first set of doors must close before the second set opens. By implementing a monitored mantrap, unauthorized access can be prevented and it can ensure that all individuals are logged when they enter and exit the server room12.

References: ISACA’s Information Systems Auditor Study Materials3

 The best recommendation to address the situation of inconsistencies in privacy requirements across third-party service provider contracts is to prioritize contract amendments for third-party providers. This is because:

Privacy requirements are essential to ensure the protection of personal information and compliance with relevant laws and regulations, such as the GDPR and the CCPA123.

Inconsistencies in privacy requirements can create risks of data breaches, legal liabilities, reputational damage, and consumer distrust for the organization that outsources its data processing to third-party providers123.

Suspending contracts with third-party providers that handle sensitive data (option A) is not a feasible or effective solution, as it may disrupt the business operations and cause contractual penalties or disputes4.

Reviewing privacy requirements when contracts come up for renewal (option C) is not a proactive or timely approach, as it may leave the organization exposed to privacy risks for a long period of time until the contracts expire4.

Requiring third-party providers to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) (option D) is not a sufficient measure, as NDAs only cover the confidentiality of information, but not other aspects of privacy, such as data minimization, retention, access, deletion, and security4.

Therefore, the best recommendation is to prioritize contract amendments for third-party providers (option B), as this would allow the organization to align the privacy requirements with its own policies and standards, as well as with the applicable laws and regulations. This would also enable the organization to monitor and audit the compliance of third-party providers with the privacy requirements and enforce appropriate remedies or sanctions in case of noncompliance45.

References: 1: Understanding CPRA service provider contract requirements - Transcend 2: What you must know about ‘third parties’ under GDPR and CCPA 3: Data Privacy Implications for ServiceProvider & Third-Party Contracts 4: Privacy and outsourcing for businesses - Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada 5: Data Security Guidelines for outsourcing and third party compliance - European Union Agency for Network and Information Security

 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 mayprovide 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