The best control to minimize the risk of unauthorized access to lost company-owned mobile devices is device encryption. Device encryption is a process that transforms data on a device into an unreadable format using a cryptographic key. Device encryption protects the data stored on the device from being accessed by unauthorized parties, even if they bypass the password or PIN protection. Device encryption can also prevent data leakage if the device is disposed of or recycled without proper data sanitization. Password or PIN protection is a basic control that prevents unauthorized access to the device by requiring a secret code or pattern to unlock it. However, password or PIN protection can be easily compromised by brute force attacks, shoulder surfing, or social engineering. Device tracking software is a tool that allows the device owner or administrator to locate, lock, or wipe the device remotely in case of loss or theft. However, device tracking software depends on the device's network connectivity and GPS functionality, which may not be available or reliable in some situations. Periodic backup is a process that copies the data from the device to another storage location for recovery purposes. Periodic backup can help restore the data in case of loss or damage of the device, but it does not prevent unauthorized access to the data on the device itself. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 5: Protection of Information Assets, Section 5.4: Mobile Devices

The best course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit is to evaluate the residual risk due to open issues. Residual risk is the risk that remains after the implementation of controls or mitigating actions. Evaluating the residual risk due to open issues can help the IS auditor assess the impact and likelihood of the potential threats and vulnerabilities that have not been addressed by the auditee, as well as the adequacy and effectiveness of the existing controls or mitigating actions. Evaluating the residual risk due to open issues can also help the IS auditor prioritize and communicate the open issues to the auditee and other stakeholders, such as senior management or audit committee, and recommend appropriate actions or escalation procedures.
Ensuring the open issues are retained in the audit results is a course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit, but it is not the best one. Ensuring the open issues are retained in the audit results can help the IS auditor document and report the status and progress of the audit recommendations, as well as provide a basis for future follow-up audits.
However, ensuring the open issues are retained in the audit results does not provide an analysis or evaluation of the residual risk due to open issues, which is more important for informing decision-making and action- taking.
Terminating the follow-up because open issues are not resolved is not a course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit, but rather a consequence or outcome of it. Terminating the follow-up because open issues are not resolved may indicate that the auditee has failed to comply with the agreed-upon actions or deadlines, or that the IS auditor has encountered significant obstacles or resistance from the auditee. Terminating the follow-up because open issues are not resolved may also trigger further actions or sanctions from the IS auditor or other authorities, such as issuing a qualified or adverse opinion, withholding certification, or imposing penalties.
Recommending compensating controls for open issues is not a course of action for an IS auditor when an auditee is unable to close all audit recommendations by the time of the follow-up audit, but rather a possible outcome or result of it. Compensating controls are alternative or additional controls that are implemented to reduce or eliminate the risk associated with a weakness or deficiency in another control. Recommending compensating controls for open issues may be appropriate when the auditee is unable to implement the original audit recommendations due to technical, operational, financial, or other constraints, and when the compensating controls can provide a similar or equivalent level of assurance. However, recommending compensating controls for open issues requires a prior evaluation of the residual risk due to open issues, which is more important for determining whether compensating controls are necessary and feasible.
References:
* Follow-up Audits - Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation 1
* Conducting The Audit Follow-Up: When To Verify - The Auditor 2
* Internal Audit Follow Ups: Are They Really Worth The Effort

The best reason for an IS auditor to emphasize to management the importance of using an IT governance framework is that frameworks can be tailored and optimized for different organizations. An IT governance framework is a set of principles, guidelines, and processes that help an organization align its IT strategy with its business goals, manage IT risks and performance, and deliver value from IT investments. An IT governance framework can be adapted and customized to suit the specific needs, context, and culture of each organization, taking into account factors such as size, industry, maturity, objectives, and stakeholders. An IT governance framework can also help an organization adopt best practices and standards from various sources, such as COBIT2, ITIL3, ISO/IEC 200004, and others.
The other options are not as good as option B, as they may not capture the full scope or benefits of using an IT governance framework. Frameworks enable IT benchmarks against competitors, but this is not the main purpose or advantage of using an IT governance framework. Frameworks help facilitate control self- assessments (CSAs), but this is only one aspect or tool of an IT governance framework. Frameworks help organizations understand and manage IT risk, but this is also only one outcome or objective of an IT governance framework.
References:
* 1: What is ITIL? Your guide to the IT Infrastructure Library | CIO
* 2: IT Governance Framework | Components | Framework | Terminology - EDUCBA
* 3: IT Governance: Definitions, Frameworks and Planning - ProjectManager
* 4: What Is IT Governance? - Definition from Techopedia
* 5: What is IT Governance? A formal way to align IT & business strategy | CIO
* 6: What Is IT Governance? - Definition from WhatIs.com
* 7: ISO/IEC 20000 Information Technology Service Management Systems Standard - ISO/IEC 20000 Portal
* 8: COBIT | Control Objectives for Information Technologies | ISACA

The metric that would best measure the agility of an organization's IT function is average time to turn strategic IT objectives into an agreed upon and approved initiative. IT agility is the ability of an IT function to respond quickly and effectively to changing business needs and opportunities. By measuring how fast an IT function can translate strategic IT objectives into actionable initiatives, such as projects or programs, an organization can assess how well its IT function can align with and support its business strategy. Average number of learning and training hours per IT staff member, frequency of security assessments against the most recent standards and guidelines, and percentage of staff with sufficient IT-related skills for the competency required of their roles are metrics that may indicate other aspects of IT performance, such as capability development, security maturity, and skills gap analysis, but they do not directly measure IT agility.
References: ISACA Journal Article: Measuring IT Agility