The best recommendation for the IS auditor to facilitate compliance with the new regulation is to include the requirement in the incident management response plan. An incident management response plan is a document that defines the roles, responsibilities, processes, and procedures for responding to security incidents. By including the new regulation in the plan, the IS auditor can ensure that the organization is aware of the reporting obligation, has a clear workflow for notifying the regulator within 24 hours, and has the necessary documentation and evidence to support the report.
The other options are not as effective as including the requirement in the incident management response plan:
* Establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) for timely identification of security incidents is a good practice, but it does not guarantee compliance with the regulation. KPIs are metrics that measure the performance of a process or activity, but they do not specify how to perform it. The IS auditor should also provide guidance on how to identify and report security incidents within 24 hours.
* Engaging an external security incident response expert for incident handling is a possible option, but it may not be feasible or cost-effective. The organization may not have the budget or time to hire an external expert, or may prefer to handle the incidents internally. The IS auditor should also evaluate the qualifications and trustworthiness of the external expert, and ensure that they comply with the regulation and other contractual or legal obligations.
* Enhancing the alert functionality of the intrusion detection system (IDS) is a useful measure, but it is not sufficient to comply with the regulation. An IDS is a tool that monitors network traffic for malicious activity and alerts the network administrator or takes preventive action. However, an IDS may not detect all types of security incidents, or may generate false positives or negatives. The IS auditor should also consider other sources of incident detection, such as logs, reports, audits, or user feedback.

Comprehensive and Detailed Step-by-Step Explanation:
Conducting vulnerability assessmentsonly once per year, right before an audit,creates a false sense of securityandleaves systems exposedbetween assessments.
* Annual Testing Before Audit (Correct Answer - A)
* Risksundetected vulnerabilitiesfor extended periods.
* Example:A company only tests security before acompliance audit, allowingzero-day threatsto persist for months.
* Internal Team Conducting Assessments (Incorrect - B)
* Not ideal, butregular assessmentsare more critical.
* Focusing on Critical Systems (Incorrect - C)
* Not perfect, butbetter than no testing at all.
* Using Open-Source Tools (Incorrect - D)
* Open-source toolscan be effective ifproperly configured.
References:
* ISACA CISA Review Manual
* NIST 800-115 (Technical Guide to Security Testing)

The programmer having access to the production programs is a control weakness that would have contributed most to the problem of unauthorized changes to key fields in a payroll system report. This is because it violates the principle of segregation of duties, which requires that different individuals or groups perform different functions related to system development, testing, implementation, and operation. Allowing programmers to access production programs increases the risk of errors, fraud, or malicious actions that may compromise the integrity, availability, or confidentiality of the system or its data. The other options are not as significant as having access to production programs, as they relate to other aspects of system development or maintenance, such as user involvement in testing (which affects user satisfaction and acceptance), user requirements documentation (which affects system functionalityand quality), and payroll files control (which affects data security and accuracy). References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Domain 3:
Information Systems Acquisition, Development and Implementation, Section 3.2 Project Management Practices

Social engineering is a technique that exploits human weaknesses, such as trust, curiosity, or greed, to obtain information or access from a target. An employee is induced to reveal confidential IP addresses and passwords by answering questions over the phone is an example of a social engineering attack method, as it involves manipulating the employee into divulging sensitive information that can be used to compromise the network or system. A hacker walks around an office building using scanning tools to search for a wireless network to gain access, an intruder eavesdrops and collects sensitive information flowing through the network and sells it to third parties, and an unauthorized person attempts to gain access to secure premises by following an authorized person through a secure door are not examples of social engineering attack methods, as they do not involve human interaction or deception. References: [ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition], page 361.

An IS auditor reviewing the threat assessment for a data center would be most concerned if all identified threats relate to external entities. This indicates that the threat assessment is incomplete and biased, as it ignores the potential threats from internal sources, such as employees, contractors, vendors, or authorized visitors. Internal threats can pose significant risks to the data center, as they may have access to sensitive information, systems, or facilities, and may exploit their privileges for malicious or fraudulent purposes. According to a study by IBM, 60% of cyberattacks in 2015 were carried out by insiders1 Some of the identified threats are unlikely to occur is not a cause for concern, as it shows that the threat assessment is comprehensive and realistic, and considers all possible scenarios, regardless of their probability.
A threat assessment should not exclude any potential threats based on subjective judgments or assumptions, as they may still have a high impact if they materialize.
The exercise was completed by local management is not a cause for concern, as it shows that the threat assessment is conducted by the people who are most familiar with the data center's operations, environment, and risks. Local management may have more relevant and accurate information and insights than external parties, and may be more invested in the outcome of the threat assessment.
Neighboring organizations' operations have been included is not a cause for concern, as it shows that the threat assessment is holistic and contextual, and considers the interdependencies and influences of external factors on the data center's security. Neighboring organizations' operations may pose direct or indirect threats to the data center, such as physical damage, network interference, or shared vulnerabilities.
References:
* IBM Security Services 2016 Cyber Security Intelligence Index 1