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 fraudulentelectronic funds transfers from occurring. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.2

The most significant risk in virtualizing the server environment without making any other changes to the network or security infrastructure is the inability of the network intrusion detection system (IDS) to monitor virtual server-to-server communications. This can create blind spots for the IDS and allow malicious traffic to bypass detection. A vulnerability in the virtualization platform affecting multiple hosts is a potential risk, but not necessarily more significant than the loss of visibility. Data center environmental controls not aligning with new configuration or system documentation not being updated to reflect changes in the environment are operational issues, not security issues. References: ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, 2018, page
373

A backlog consumption report is a report that shows the amount of work that has been completed and the amount of work that remains to be done in a project. It is a useful tool for measuring the progress and performance of a web-based customer service application development project, as it can indicate whether the project is on track, ahead or behind schedule, and how much effort is required to finish the project. A backlog consumption report can also help identify any issues or risks that may affect the project delivery. Critical path analysis reports, developer status reports and change management logs are also helpful for evaluating a project, but they are not as helpful as a backlog consumption report, as they do not provide a clear picture of the overall project status and completion rate. References:
[Backlog Consumption Report Definition]
Backlog Consumption Report | ISACA

Full disk encryption (FDE) is a means of protecting information by encrypting all of thedata on a disk, including temporary files, programs, and system files1. FDE is best suited for addressing the risk scenario of physical theft of media on which information is stored, as it prevents unauthorized access to the data even if the device is lost or stolen2. FDE does not prevent data leakage as a result of employees leaving to work for competitors, as they may still have access to the data while using the device or copy the data to another device before leaving. FDE does not prevent noncompliance fines related to storage of regulated information, as it does not ensure that the data is stored in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. FDE does not prevent unauthorized logical access to information through an application interface, as it does not control the access rights and permissions of users and applications. *References: According to the ISACA IT Audit and Assurance Standards, Guidelines and Tools and Techniques for IS Audit and Assurance Professionals, section
2402 Planning, "The IS audit and assurance professional should identify and assess risk relevant to the area under review." 3 Oneof the risk factors to consider is "the sensitivity of information processed, stored or transmitted by the system" 3. FDE is one of the possible controls to mitigate the risk of unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information due to physical theft of media.

The finding that should be of greatest concern to an IS auditor assessing the effectiveness of an organization' s vulnerability scanning program is that results are not reported to individuals with authority to ensure resolution. This indicates a lack of accountability and communication for vulnerability management, which may result in unresolved or delayed remediation of identified vulnerabilities. This may expose the organization to increased risk of cyberattacks or breaches. The other findings are also concerning, but not as much as this one, because they may affect the completeness, accuracy or timeliness of the vulnerability scanning process, but not necessarily its effectiveness. References:
ISACA, CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, chapter 4, section 4.41
ISACA, COBIT 2019 Framework: Introduction and Methodology, section 3.2