CISA Practice Question: Information Systems Acquisition, Development, and Implementation
An IS auditor is assessing the security controls in a newly developed mobile banking application. The development team used the OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard (MASVS) as a guide. Which of the following would be the MOST effective evidence that the application meets the standard's requirements for secure data storage?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is assuming that a single penetration test or a developer's checklist is sufficient to prove compliance with a comprehensive standard like MASVS.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
A combination of static and dynamic analysis reports, plus a manual review of data storage locations, mapped to MASVS controls.
The most effective evidence is a combination of static and dynamic analysis with manual review, as it covers code and runtime aspects and ensures all storage locations are examined. This aligns with MASVS's requirement for thorough verification. Other options are partial or self-attested and do not provide the depth needed to confirm secure data storage fully.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
A penetration test report showing no critical vulnerabilities in the application's data storage mechanisms.
Why it's wrong here
A penetration test provides point-in-time assurance but does not comprehensively verify adherence to all MASVS requirements. It may miss certain storage locations or fail to test all data types. The MASVS requires a systematic approach, so a single penetration test is insufficient as primary evidence.
- ✗
A static application security testing (SAST) report that identifies all hardcoded secrets and insecure storage APIs.
Why it's wrong here
SAST can find some issues but is limited to code analysis and may produce false positives or negatives. It does not validate runtime behavior or the effectiveness of encryption. MASVS requires a combination of static and dynamic analysis, so SAST alone is not sufficient evidence.
- ✓
A combination of static and dynamic analysis reports, plus a manual review of data storage locations, mapped to MASVS controls.
Why this is correct
MASVS verification requires a mix of automated and manual testing to cover all storage locations and data types. Static and dynamic analyses identify code-level and runtime issues, while manual review ensures that all sensitive data is stored securely. This comprehensive approach provides strong evidence of compliance with the standard's requirements.
- ✗
A code review checklist signed off by the lead developer confirming that sensitive data is encrypted.
Why it's wrong here
A checklist signed off by the developer is self-attestation and lacks independent verification. It does not prove that encryption is correctly implemented or that all sensitive data is covered. MASVS verification requires objective evidence, such as test results, not just a developer's assertion.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every CISA question from scratch — 934 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official ISACA exam blueprint
This CISA practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CISA exam.