Isaca Certification CISA Syllabus Exam Questions Answers

The best recommendation to prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers by accounts payable employees is dual control. Dual control is a segregation of duties control that requires two or more individuals to perform or authorize a transaction or activity. Dual control can prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers by requiring independent verification and approval of payment requests, amounts, and recipients by different accounts payable employees. The other options are not as effective as dual control in preventing fraudulent electronic funds transfers, as they do not involve independent checks or approvals. Periodic vendor reviews are detective controls that can help identify any irregularities or anomalies in vendor payments, but they do not prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers from occurring. Independent reconciliation is a detective control that can help compare and confirm payment records with bank statements, but it does not prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers from occurring. Re-keying of monetary amounts is an input control that can help detect any errors or discrepancies in payment amounts, but it does not prevent fraudulent electronic funds transfers from occurring. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

 Write access to production program libraries presents the greatest risk when granted to a new member of the system development staff. Production program libraries contain executable code that runs on live systems and supports critical business functions. Write access allows a user to modify or delete existing programs, or add new programs to the library. If a user were to make unauthorized or erroneous changes to production programs, it could cause serious disruptions, errors, or security breaches in the organization’s operations. Therefore, write access to production program libraries should be restricted to authorized personnel only, and subject to strict change management controls. 

Deferring remediation testing until the next audit is justified only when there are significant changes in the audit environment that affect the relevance or validity of the audit observations and recommendations. For example, if there are changes in the business processes, systems, regulations, or risks that require a new audit scope or approach. The other options are not valid justifications for deferring remediation testing, as they do not address the timeliness or quality of the audit follow-up process. The auditor who conducted the audit and agreed with the timeline has left the organization does not affect the responsibility of the audit function to ensure that remediation testing is performed as planned. Management’s planned actions are sufficient given the relative importance of the observations does not guarantee that management will actually implement those actions or that they will be effective in addressing the audit issues. Auditee management has accepted all observations reported by the auditor does not eliminate the need for verification of remediation actions by an independent party. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.4

 The most important consideration for a go-live decision when implementing an upgraded enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is the business case. The business case is the document that defines and justifies the need, value, feasibility, and risks of the project. It also outlines the expected costs, benefits, outcomes, and impacts of the project. The business case provides the basis for measuring and evaluating the success of the project. Therefore, before deciding to go live with an upgraded ERP system, it is essential to review and validate the business case to ensure that it is still relevant, accurate, realistic, and achievable.

A rollback strategy, test cases, and post-implementation review objectives are not the most important considerations for a go-live decision when implementing an upgraded ERP system. These are important elements of project planning, execution, and evaluation, but they are not sufficient to determine whether the project is worth pursuing or delivering. These elements should be aligned with and derived from the business case.