CISA Questions Bank

The first step that the organization should take to ensure that only the corporate network is used for downloading business data is to include a statement in its security policy about Internet use. A security policy is a document that defines the rules, expectations, and overall approach that an organization uses to maintain the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its data1. A security policy should clearly state the acceptable and unacceptable use of Internet resources, such as personalaccounts with ISPs, and the consequences of violating the policy. A security policy also helps to guide the implementation of technical controls, such as proxy servers, firewalls, or monitoring tools, that can enforce the policy and prevent or detect unauthorized Internet access.

The other options are not the first step that the organization should take, but rather subsequent or complementary steps that depend on the security policy. Using a proxy server to filter out Internet sites that should not be accessed is a technical control that can help implement the security policy, but it does not address the root cause of why users are using personal accounts with ISPs. Keeping a manual log of Internet access is a monitoring technique that can help audit the compliance with the security policy, but it does not prevent or deter users from using personal accounts with ISPs. Monitoring remote access activities is another monitoring technique that can help detect unauthorized Internet access, but it does not specify what constitutes unauthorized access or how to respond to it.

A disaster recovery plan (DRP) is a set of procedures and resources that enable an organization to restore its critical operations, data, and applications in the event of a disaster1. A DRP should be aligned with the organization’s business continuity plan (BCP), which defines the strategies and objectives for maintaining business functions during and after a disaster1.

To ensure that a DRP is effective, it should betested regularly and thoroughly to identify and resolve any issues or gaps that might hinder itsexecution2345. Testing a DRP can help evaluate its feasibility, validity, reliability, and compatibility with the organization’s environment and needs4. Testing can also help prepare the staff, stakeholders, and vendors involved in the DRP for their roles and responsibilities during a disaster3.

There are different methods and levels of testing a DRP, depending on the scope, complexity, and objectives of the test4. Some of the common testing methods are:

Walkthrough testing: This is a step-by-step review of the DRP by the disaster recovery team and relevant stakeholders. It aims to verify the completeness and accuracy of the plan, as well as to clarify any doubts or questions among the participants45.

Simulation testing: This is a mock exercise of the DRP in a simulated disaster scenario. It aims to assess the readiness and effectiveness of the plan, as well as to identify any challenges or weaknesses that might arise during a real disaster45.

Checklist testing: This is a verification of the availability and functionality of the resources and equipment required for the DRP. It aims toensure that the backup systems, data, anddocumentation are accessible and up-to-date45.

Full interruption testing: This is the most realistic and rigorous method of testing a DRP. It involves shutting down the primary site and activating the backup site for a certain period of time. It aims to measure the actual impact andperformance of the DRP under real conditions45.

Parallel testing: This is a less disruptive method of testing a DRP. It involves running the backup site in parallel with the primary site without affecting the normal operations. It aims to compare and validate the results and outputs of both sites45.

Amongthese methods, full interruption testing would best demonstrate that an effectiveDRP is in place, as it provides the most accurate and comprehensive evaluation ofthe plan’s capabilities and limitations4. Full interruption testing can reveal any hidden or unforeseen issues or risks that might affect the recovery process, such as data loss, system failure, compatibility problems, or human errors4. Full interruption testing can also verify that the backup site can support the critical operations and services ofthe organization without compromising its quality or security4.

However, full interruption testing also has some drawbacks, such as being costly, time-consuming, risky, and disruptive to the normaloperations4. Therefore, it should be planned carefullyand conducted periodically with proper coordination and communication among all parties involved4.

The other options are not as effective as full interruption testing in demonstrating that an effective DRP is in place. Frequent testing of backups is only one aspect of checklist testing, which does not cover other components or scenarios of the DRP4. Annual walk-through testing is only atheoretical review of the DRP, which does not test its practical implementation or outcomes4. Periodic risk assessment is only a preparatory step for developing or updating the DRP, which does not test its functionality or performance4.

A concern associated with virtualization is that performance issues with the host could impact the guest operating systems, which are the operating systems that run on virtual machines within the host. For example, if the host has insufficient memory, CPU, disk space, or network bandwidth, it could affect the performance and availability of the guest operating systems and the applications running on them. The physical footprint of servers could decrease within the datacenter, processingcapacity may be shared across multiple operating systems, and one host may have multiple versions of the same operating system are not concerns associated with virtualization, but rather benefits or features of virtualization that can help reduce costs, improve efficiency, and enhance flexibility. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 4: Information Systems Operations and Business Resilience, Section 4.2: IT Service Delivery and Support

The best recommendation is database segmentation. If liability depends on the number of individuals whose PII is exposed, the organization should reduce the amount of data that could be compromised in any single breach event. Segmenting databases or separating sensitive data domains limits blast radius and can reduce the number of records exposed in a single incident. ISACA guidance supports isolating high-value assets and tightening internal controls as a way to reduce exposure and improve resilience.

Option A is correct because segmentation limits concentration risk. Instead of keeping all customer data in one broadly exposed logical store, segmentation helps confine access and reduce how many records a single compromise can reach. This directly supports limiting breach impact and, in this case, potential liability tied to the number of affected individuals. This conclusion is an inference from ISACA’s risk-reduction principles around isolation, exposure control, and documenting exposure.

Option B is incorrect because database normalization improves data structure and reduces redundancy; it is not primarily a breach-liability reduction control.

Option C is incorrect because database harmonization is about consistency or integration across datasets, not limiting exposure in a breach.

Option D is incorrect because database optimization focuses on performance and efficiency, not on minimizing the number of PII records exposed in a security incident.

Therefore, A is the best answer because segmentation is the option that most directly reduces the scope of exposure in a breach and therefore helps limit liability based on affected individuals.

References (Official ISACA):

ISACA, Best Practices for Setting Up a Cybersecurity Operations Center — recommends prioritizing assets and isolating high-value asset networks.

ISACA Journal, Reporting on GDPR Compliance to the Board — emphasizes documenting exposure and relevant risk controls for privacy risk reporting.

ISACA Journal, Practical Data Security and Privacy for GDPR and CCPA — supports governance approaches to limiting privacy exposure. (Referenced conceptually from prior ISACA privacy guidance.)