This means that the organization should obtain the source code from the escrow agent and compare it with the current version of the application that they are using. The organization should then identify and apply any changes or updates that are missing or different in the escrow version, so that it matches the current version.
This way, the organization can ensure that they have a complete and accurate copy of the source code that reflects their current needs and requirements.
Bringing the escrow version up to date can help the organization to avoid or reduce the risks and costs associated with using an outdated or incompatible version of the source code. For example, an older version of the source code may have bugs, errors, or vulnerabilities that could affect the functionality, security, or performance of the application. An older version of the source code may also lack some features, enhancements, or integrations that could improve the usability, efficiency, or value of the application. An older version of the source code may also not comply with some standards, regulations, or contracts that could affect the quality, reliability, or legality of the application1.
The other options are not as good as bringing the escrow version up to date for the organization. Option A, analyzing a new application that meets the current requirements, is a possible option but it may be more time- consuming, expensive, and risky than updating the existing application. The organization may have to go through a complex and lengthy process of selecting, acquiring, implementing, testing, and migrating to a new application, which could disrupt their operations and performance. The organization may also have to deal with compatibility, interoperability, or data quality issues when switching to a new application2. Option B, performing an analysis to determine the business risk, is a necessary step but not a recommendation for the organization. The organization should already be aware of the business risk of using an application whose vendor has gone out of business and whose escrow has an older version of the source code. The organization should focus on finding and implementing a solution to mitigate or eliminate this risk3. Option D, developing a maintenance plan to support the application using the existing code, is not a feasible option because it assumes that the organization has access to the existing code. However, this is not the case because the vendor has gone out of business and the escrow has an older version of the source code. The organization cannot support or maintain an application without having a complete and accurate copy of its source code.
References:
* How Important Is Source Code Escrow - ISACA1
* The What and Why of Source Code Escrow2
* Unlocking Source Code In Escrow 2023: A Guide To Secure Software3

Asking management why the regulatory changes have not been included is the first thing that an IS auditor should do during the planning stage of a compliance audit. An IS auditor should inquire about the reasons for not updating the inventory of compliance requirements with recent regulatory changes related to managing data risk. This will help the IS auditor to understand whether there is a gap in awareness, communication, or implementation of compliance obligations within the organization. The other options are not the first things that an IS auditor should do, but rather possible subsequent actions that may depend on management's response. References:
* CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.31
* CISA Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, Question ID 214

Admin accounts typically have the highest level of privileges and access to sensitive data. If the passwords for these accounts are not set to expire, it increases the risk of unauthorized access and potential security breaches. This is especially true if an admin's credentials are compromised, as the attacker could have ongoing access to critical systems and data1.
References:
Database Auditing - Satori

Reviewing the application implementation documents is the best way for an IS auditor to assess the design of an automated application control. An automated application control is a control that is embedded in the application software and is executed by the system without human intervention. An automated application control is designed to ensure the accuracy, completeness, validity, and authorization of transactions and data processed by the application. Examples of automated application controls are input validation, edit checks, calculations, reconciliations, and exception reports.
The application implementation documents are the documents that describe the design specifications, logic, and functionality of the application and its controls. The application implementation documents may include:
Business requirements document - a document that defines the business objectives, needs, and expectations of the application.
Functional specifications document - a document that describes the features, functions, and interfaces of the application and its controls.
Technical specifications document - a document that details the technical architecture, design, and configuration of the application and its controls.
Test plan and test cases - a document that outlines the testing strategy, methodology, and scenarios for verifying the functionality and performance of the application and its controls.
User manual and training material - a document that provides instructions and guidance on how to use the application and its controls.
By reviewing the application implementation documents, an IS auditor can:
Gain an understanding of the purpose, scope, and nature of the application and its controls.
Evaluate whether the application and its controls are designed to meet the business requirements and objectives.
Identify any gaps, inconsistencies, or errors in the design of the application and its controls.
Compare the design of the application and its controls with the best practices and standards in the industry.
Determine whether the application and its controls are adequately tested and documented.
Interviewing the application developer is not the best way for an IS auditor to assess the design of an automated application control. An interview is a verbal communication technique that involves asking questions and listening to responses. An interview can be useful for obtaining general information or clarifying specific issues related to the application and its controls. However, an interview alone cannot provide sufficient evidence or documentation to support the auditor's assessment of the design of an automated application control. An interview may also be subject to bias, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation by either party.
Obtaining management attestation and sign-off is not the best way for an IS auditor to assess the design of an automated application control. Management attestation and sign-off is a formal process that involves obtaining written confirmation from management that they have reviewed and approved the design of the application and its controls. Management attestation and sign-off can indicate management's commitment and accountability for the quality and effectiveness of the application and its controls. However, management attestation and sign-off cannot substitute for an independent and objective evaluation by an IS auditor.
Management attestation and sign-off may also be influenced by pressure, conflict of interest, or fraud.
Reviewing system configuration parameters and output is not the best way for an IS auditor to assess the design of an automated application control. System configuration parameters are settings that define how the system operates or interacts with other components. System output is data or information that is produced by the system as a result of processing transactions or performing functions. Reviewing system configuration parameters and output can help an IS auditor to verify whether the system is configured correctly and whether it produces accurate and reliable output. However, reviewing system configuration parameters and output cannot provide a comprehensive view of how the application and its controls are designed to achieve their objectives. Reviewing system configuration parameters and output may also require technical expertise or access rights that may not be available to an IS auditor.