Comprehensive and Detailed Step-by-Step Explanation:
Enterprise Architecture (EA) governance requires proper oversight and separation of duties to ensure strategic alignment and risk management.
* Option A (Correct):If IT application owners have sole authority over architecture approval, there is a high risk of inadequate governance, lack of strategic alignment, and potential conflicts of interest.
Architecture decisions should involve multiple stakeholders, including business and security teams, to ensure compliance, security, and business alignment.
* Option B (Incorrect):While having the CIO chair the architecture review board might not be ideal, it is not thegreatestconcern. The CIO is a senior leader who can provide oversight and direction, even if additional governance mechanisms should be in place.
* Option C (Incorrect):Reviewing security requirements within the EA program is abest practice, as it ensures that security is embedded into enterprise architecture rather than treated as an afterthought.
* Option D (Incorrect):Enterprise architecture should ideally encompass both IT and business processes.
Governing non-IT-related projects is not inherently problematic, as EA is designed to align business strategy with IT infrastructure.
Reference:ISACA CISA Review Manual -Domain 1: Information Systems Auditing Process- Covers IT governance and EA program structure.

Comprehensive and Detailed Step-by-Step Explanation:
Ifmeasurable benefitswerenot defined, the organizationcannot assess whether the system achieved its intended goals, making it the mostcriticalissue.
* Measurable Benefits Not Defined (Correct Answer - D)
* No clear KPIs or success metricsmeans no way toevaluate ROI.
* Example:A company implementsan ERP systembut has no performance indicators to measure success.
* No Lessons Learned (Incorrect - A)
* Important but doesnot impact system effectiveness.
* Missing Dashboard Deliverables (Incorrect - B)
* A reporting issue,not a strategic failure.
* Budget Overrun (Incorrect - C)
* A financial concern butnot as critical as system success measurement.
References:
* ISACA CISA Review Manual
* COBIT 2019 (Project Governance)

A post-incident review (PIR) is a process to review the incident information from occurrence to closure and to identify potential findings and recommendations for improvement1. The most important reason for an IS auditor to examine the results of a PIR is to evaluate the effectiveness of continuous improvement efforts and to ensure that the lessons learned from the incident are implemented and followed up2. A PIR can help an organization to eliminate or reduce the risk of the incident to re-occur, improve the initial incident detection time, identify improvements needed to diagnose and repair the incident, and update the incident management best practices1. Therefore, a PIR is a valuable source of information for an IS auditor to assess the maturity and performance of the organization's incident management process.

Shadow IT often arises when approved software does not meet user requirements (Option D), leading employees to seek alternative solutions.
ISACA CISA Reference: IT governance frameworks stress the need for user-centric IT policies to mitigate shadow IT risks.
Risk Implication: Shadow IT introduces security vulnerabilities, compliance risks, and potential data breaches.

Anti-malware tool audit logs would provide an IS auditor with the best evidence of continuous compliance with the global organization's policy that states that all workstations must be scanned for malware each day. Anti-malware tool audit logs are records that capture the activities and events related to the anti-malware software installed on the workstations, such as scan schedules, scan results, updates, alerts, and actions taken1. These logs can help the IS auditor to verify that the anti-malware software is functioning properly, that the scans are performed regularly and effectively, and that any malware incidents are detected and resolved in a timely manner2. Anti-malware tool audit logs can also help the IS auditor to identify any gaps or weaknesses in the anti-malware policy or implementation, and to provide recommendations for improvement3.
The other options are not the best evidence of continuous compliance with the anti-malware policy. Penetration testing results are reports that show the vulnerabilities and risks of the workstations and network from an external or internal attacker's perspective4. While penetration testing can help to assess the security posture and resilience of the organization, it does not provide information on the daily anti-malware scans or their outcomes. Management attestation is a statement or declaration from the management that they have complied with the anti-malware policy5. While management attestation can demonstrate commitment and accountability, it does not provide objective or verifiable evidence of compliance. Recent malware scan reports are documents that show the summary or details of the latest anti-malware scans performed on the workstations. While recent malware scan reports can indicate the current status and performance of the anti-malware software, they do not provide historical or comprehensive evidence of compliance.
References:
* Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (MBAM) log collection and threat reports ...
* Malicious Behavior Detection using Windows Audit Logs
* PCI Requirement 5.2 - Ensure all Anti-Virus Mechanisms are Current ...
* Management Attestation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
* How to Read a Malware Scan Report | Techwalla