The primary benefit of an audit approach that requires reported findings to be issued together with related action plans, owners, and target dates is that it establishes accountability for the action plans. Accountability means that the individuals or groups who are responsible for implementing the action plans are clearly identified and held liable for their completion within the specified time frame. Accountability also implies that the action plans are monitored and evaluated to ensure that they are effective and efficient in addressing the audit findings and mitigating the associated risks1. Accountability helps to ensure that the audit recommendations are taken seriously and implemented properly, and that the audit value is realized by the organization2. The other options are less relevant or incorrect because:
* A. It facilitates easier audit follow-up is not the primary benefit of an audit approach that requires reported findings to be issued together with related action plans, owners, and target dates, as it is more of a secondary or indirect benefit. Audit follow-up is the process of verifying whether the action plans have been implemented and whether they have resolved the audit findings3. While having clear action plans, owners, and target dates may facilitate easier audit follow-up by providing a basis for tracking and reporting the progress and status of the action plans, it does not necessarily guarantee that the action plans will be implemented or effective.
* B. It enforces action plan consensus between auditors and auditees is not the primary benefit of an audit approach that requires reported findings to be issued together with related action plans, owners, and target dates, as it is more of a prerequisite or condition for such an approach. Action plan consensus means that the auditors and auditees agree on the audit findings and recommendations, and on the action plans to address them4. While having action plan consensus may enhance the credibility and acceptance of the audit approach, it does not necessarily ensure that the action plans will be implemented or effective.
* D. It helps to ensure factual accuracy of findings is not the primary benefit of an audit approach that requires reported findings to be issued together with related action plans, owners, and target dates, as it is more of an outcome or result of such an approach. Factual accuracy of findings means that the audit findings are based on sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful evidence5. While having factual accuracy of findings may increase the confidence and trust in the audit approach, it does not necessarily ensure that the action plans will be implemented or effective. References: Accountability - ISACA, Audit Value - ISACA, Audit Follow-up - ISACA, Action Plan Consensus - ISACA, Factual Accuracy of Findings - ISACA

The best way to determine whether a test of a disaster recovery plan (DRP) was successful is to analyze whether predetermined test objectives were met. Test objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals that define what the test aims to accomplish and how it will be evaluated.
Test objectives should be aligned with the DRP objectives and scope, and should cover aspects such as recovery time objectives (RTOs), recovery point objectives (RPOs), critical business functions, roles and responsibilities, communication channels, backup systems, and contingency procedures. By comparing the actual test results with the expected test objectives, the IS auditor can measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the DRP and identify any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed.

Section: Protection of Information Assets

Explanation/Reference:
Explanation:
Financial results have traditionally been the sole overall performance metric. The IT balanced scorecard (BSC) is an IT business governance tool aimed at monitoring IT performance evaluation indicators other than financial results. The IT BSC considers other key success factors, such as customer satisfaction, innovation capacity and processing.

Section: Protection of Information Assets
Explanation:
Piggybacking refers to unauthorized persons following authorized persons, either physically or virtually, into restricted areas. This policy addresses the polite behavior problem of holding doors open for a stranger, if every employee must have their badge read at every controlled door no unauthorized person could enter the sensitive area. Looking over the shoulder of a user to obtain sensitive information could be done by an unauthorized person who has gained access to areas using piggybacking, but this policy specifically refers to physical access control. Shoulder surfing would not be prevented by the implementation of this policy.
Dumpster diving, looking through an organization's trash for valuable information, could be done outside the company's physical perimeter; therefore, this policy would not address this attack method.
Impersonation refers to a social engineer acting as an employee, trying to retrieve the desired information.
Some forms of social engineering attacks could join an impersonation attack and piggybacking, but this information security policy does not address the impersonation attack.