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.

The primary reason an IS auditor would recommend replacing universal PIN codes with an RFID access card system at a data center is to improve traceability (A). Traceability is the ability to track and monitor the activities and movements of individuals or objects within a system or environment. Traceability is important for ensuring security, accountability, and compliance in a data center, where sensitive and critical data are stored and processed.
An RFID access card system can improve traceability by using RFID technology to verify and record the identity and access of each user who enters or exits the data center. RFID stands for Radio Frequency Identification, and it enables wireless communication between a reader and an RFID tag. An RFID tag is installed in a door key card or fob, which users use to gain access to the data center. An RFID reader is installed near the door, and it contains an antenna that receives data transmitted by the RFID tag. A control panel is a computer server that reads and interprets the data passed along by the RFID reader. A database is a storage system that stores the data collected by the control panel1.
An RFID access card system can provide several benefits for traceability, such as123:
It can uniquely identify each user and their access level, and prevent unauthorized access or impersonation.
It can record the date, time, and duration of each user's access, and generate logs and reports for auditing purposes.
It can monitor the location and status of each user within the data center, and alert security personnel in case of any anomalies or emergencies.
It can integrate with other security systems, such as cameras, alarms, or biometrics, to enhance verification and protection.
A universal PIN code system, on the other hand, can compromise traceability by using a single or shared personal identification number (PIN) to grant access to multiple users. A universal PIN code system can pose several risks for traceability, such as4:
It can be easily guessed, stolen, shared, or compromised by malicious actors or insiders.
It can not distinguish between different users or their access levels, and allow unauthorized or excessive access.
It can not record or track the activities or movements of each user within the data center, and create gaps or errors in the audit trail.
It can not integrate with other security systems, and provide limited verification and protection.
Therefore, an IS auditor would recommend replacing universal PIN codes with an RFID access card system at a data center to improve traceability.
References:
RFID Access Control Guide: 4 Best RFID Access Control Systems - ButterflyMX Choosing Card Technology in 2023 | ICT RFID Vs Magnetic Key Cards: What's The Difference? - Go Safer Security RFID vs Barcode - Advantages, Disadvantages & Differences

Comprehensive and Detailed Step-by-Step Explanation:
Astress testevaluates system performance under extreme conditions, such as high user loads, to determine how the system behaves under peak traffic or resource exhaustion.
* Stress Testing (Correct Answer - A)
* Identifies performance bottlenecks in software applications.
* Helps ensure the ERP system can handle expected workloads.
* Example:Simulating thousands of concurrent users accessing the ERP system to test response times and server load capacity.
* Parallel Testing (Incorrect - B)
* Compares a new system with an old one but does not test system performance under load.
* Regression Testing (Incorrect - C)
* Tests whether recent code changes have affected existing functionality but does not focus on performance.
* Interface Testing (Incorrect - D)
* Checks interactions between system components but does not measure performance.
References:
* ISACA CISA Review Manual
* COBIT 2019: Performance and Capacity Planning
* NIST 800-37 (Risk Management Framework)