Hiskies wrote: » An IS auditor should focus on when controls are exercised as data flow through a computer system. Choice B is incorrect since corrective controls may also be relevant. Choice C is incorrect because corrective controls remove or reduce the effects of errors or irregularities and are not exclusively regarded as compensating controls. Choice D is incorrect and irrelevant, because the existence and function of controls is important, not the classification. ??? How do you confirm existence of controls without first classifying them?
Hiskies wrote: » Q. Which of the following forms of evidence for the auditor would be considered the MOST reliable? A. An oral statement from the auditee B. The results of a test performed by an external IS auditor C. An internally generated computer accounting report D. A confirmation letter received from an outside source In my opinion the most RELIABLE evidence would be a computer generated accounting report but it appears that the correct answer is test performed by an external IS auditor, even thou human element and detection risk is involved in such a report. If the question stated that which would be more USEFUL and COMPREHENSIVE then I would've went for B but as far as the accuracy/reliability is concerned, I don't see how an external auditor could assure that.
Hiskies wrote: » Q. When testing program change requests, an IS auditor finds that the population of changes was too small to provide a reasonable level of assurance. What is the MOST appropriate action for the IS auditor to take? A. Develop an alternate testing procedure. B. Report the finding to management as a deficiency. C. Perform a walk-through of the change management process. D. Create additional sample changes to programs. Supposedly correct answer is A with following explanation. If a sample size objective cannot be met with the given data, the IS auditor would not be able to provide assurance regarding the testing objective. In this instance, the IS auditor should develop (with audit management approval) an alternate testing procedure. There is not enough evidence to report the finding as a deficiency. A walk-through should not be initiated until an analysis is performed to confirm that this could provide the required assurance. It would not be appropriate for an IS auditor to create sample data for the purpose of the audit. Wouldn't I had initiated a walk through already prior to reviewing the actual change requests. If not then it would be reviewing forms before properly realizing and understanding how they were processed and for what they are being used for exactly.
EXPL01TUS wrote: » And another stupid one: This question refers to the following diagram: Internet <--> Firewall-1 <--> Mail Gateway <--> Firwall-2 <--> IDS Email traffic from the Internet is routed via firewall-1 to the mail gateway. Mail is routed from the mail gateway, via firewall-2, to the mail recipients in the internal network. Other traffic is not allowed. For example, the firewalls do not allow direct traffic from the Internet to the internal network. The intrusion detection system (IDS) detects traffic for the internal network that did not originate from the mail gateway. The FIRST action triggered by the IDS should be to: A. alert the appropriate staff B. create an entry in the log C. close firewall-2 D. close firewall-1 In my experience (SNORT), the first action triggered by an IDS is for the IDS to generate and log an event, or "create an entry in the log." Of course, ISACA elects to make 'C' the correct answer. I'm not an IDS or firewall engineer, but is it even possible for the IDS/IPS to "close" a firewall upon the generation of an event? I don't even think embedded modules (like Cisco IDS on an ASA) can shut down or disable an interface on the host firewall like that. Is that a thing? Am I missing something here? Also, that's a stupid setup.
EXPL01TUS wrote: » Oh, here's another frustrating one: For mission-critical applications with a low recovery time objective (RTO), the IS auditor would recommend the use of which of the following recovery strategies? A. Mobile Site B. Redundant Site C. Hot Site D. Reciprocal Agreements I immediately boil it down to B and C. Although the application is "mission-critical," it has still been assigned a LOW (not zero) RTO. "Low" is relative and is definitively not zero. It would be most appropriate to have a hot site that can be up in a few hours, as it would be the most cost-effective solution to meet the RTO. A redundant site would also meet the RTO, but would be more costly to maintain with regard to time, human, and financial resources. Of course, ISACA elected to make 'B' (Redundant site) the correct answer. I hope they do better for the actual exam, because this is ridiculous.
EXPL01TUS wrote: » Also, xiny, you should totally go back and take the Security+ exam so you can arrange your CompTIA certifications as P+L+A+N+S+ (Or P+L+A+N+ right now). I have no idea why that crossed my mind.
xiny wrote: » If the IDS and Firewall are the same brand, Cisco for example, then the IDS can request that the Firewall shutdown an interface on it's behalf. Obviously an IPS could just shut down it's own interface, but some IDS's do have the ability to make that kind of request as long as the interoperability is there with the Firewall. The question doesn't out right say that the IDS has that capability though. But if it does then the order would be (1) Shutdown the Interface (2) Create a Log and (3) Alert the Staff If a company has a DMZ specifically meant for Mail traffic tells me that they have HEAVY mail traffic. So in this setup you would use an IDS with the ability to shut down a firewalls interface as opposed to the overhead that can be caused by an IPS.
xiny wrote: » After thinking about it this actually makes a lot of sense. The first thing is, one of the answers is Hot Site so that makes me assume that the Redundant Site is being considered a Cold Site. Since these are Low RTO's, meaning they do not take a long time to get up and running, means you would use a redundant site. You could use a Hot Site but the company would ultimately waste money to keep the site up 24/7 (which is what a hot site is meant to be). So the answer would be redundant site. Basically what you should pull from this question is that you shouldn't use a Hot Site (An Expensive, needs to be up 24/7 site) for Low RTO Applications.