This is because audit trails are records of system activity and user actions that can provide evidence of the validity and integrity of transactions and data in a financial application system. Audit trails can help to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, policies, and standards, as well as to detect and prevent fraud, errors, or misuse of information. Audit trails can also facilitate auditing, monitoring, and evaluation of the financial application system's performance and controls1.
The application should meet the organization's requirements (A) is not the best answer, because it is a general and obvious criterion that applies to any application system acquisition, not a specific and important recommendation for a financial application system. The organization's requirementsshould be clearly defined and documented in the RFP, but they may not necessarily include audit trails as a design feature.
Potential suppliers should have experience in the relevant area is not the best answer, because it is a factor that affects the selection of the supplier, not the design of the financial application system. The experience and reputation of potential suppliers should be evaluated and verified during the RFP process, but they may not guarantee that the supplier will include audit trails in the design.
Vendor employee background checks should be conducted regularly (D) is not the best answer, because it is a measure that affects the security and trustworthiness of the vendor, not the design of the financial application system. Vendor employee background checks should be performed as part of the vendor management and due diligence process, but they may not ensure that the vendor will include audit trails in the design.

The best course of action for a security administrator who is called in the middle of the night by the on-call programmer who needs access to the live system is to give the programmer an emergency ID for temporary access and review the activity. This is because:
Requiring that a change request be completed and approved may delay the resolution of the problem and cause further damage or disruption to the system or business operations. A change request is a formal document that describes the proposed change, its rationale, impact, benefits, risks, costs, and approval process. A change request is usually required for planned or scheduled changes, not for emergency or urgent changes.
Giving the programmer read-only access to investigate the problem may not be sufficient or effective, as the programmer may need to perform actions or tests that require write or execute permissions. Read-only access means that the user can only view or copy data or files, but cannot modify or delete them.
Reviewing activity logs the following day and investigating any suspicious activity may not prevent or detect any unauthorized or malicious actions by the programmer in real time. Activity logs are records of events and actions that occur within a system or network. Activity logs can provide evidence and accountability for system activities, but they are not proactive or preventive controls.
Therefore, giving the programmer an emergency ID for temporary access and reviewing the activity is the best course of action, as it allows the programmer to access the live system and resolve the problem quickly, while also ensuring that the security administrator can monitor and verify the programmer's activity and revoke the access when it is no longer needed. An emergency ID is a temporary account that grants a user elevated privileges or access to a system or resource for a specific purpose and duration. An emergency ID should be:
Created and authorized by a security administrator or manager
Assigned to a specific user and purpose
Limited in scope and time
Logged and audited
Revoked and deleted after use
Some of the best practices for emergency access to live systems are12:
Establish clear policies and procedures for requesting, approving, granting, monitoring, reviewing, and revoking emergency access Define criteria and scenarios for emergency access, such as severity, impact, urgency, and risk Implement controls to prevent unauthorized or unnecessary use of emergency access, such as multifactor authentication, approval workflows, alerts, notifications, and time restrictions Implement controls to track and audit emergency access activities, such as logging, reporting, analysis, and investigation Implement controls to ensure accountability and responsibility for emergency access users, such as attestation, justification, documentation, and feedback

A strongQA functionrequires anindependentreview of changes toavoid biasandensure objectivity.
Option A (Correct):Ifdevelopers review their own changes, there is ahigh risk of biasand overlooking issues, making this the greatest concern. This violatesseparation of dutiesandbest practices for quality assurance.
Option B (Incorrect):Peer reviews within the same teamreduce risksincefresh eyesreview the changes, though it is not as strong as an external review.
Option C (Incorrect):Havingdevelopers from a separate teamreview the code providesbetter objectivityand reduces risks associated withself-review.
Option D (Incorrect):Whilenon-developers may lack technical expertise, their review ensuresindependence, making it a stronger control than self-review.
Reference:ISACA CISA Review Manual -Domain 3: Information Systems Acquisition, Development, and Implementation- Coversquality assurance, code reviews, and segregation of duties.