CISA Practice Question: Information Systems Acquisition, Development, and Implementation
An IS auditor is evaluating the change management process. Which of the following is the BEST indicator that emergency changes are being properly controlled?
⚠ Common exam trap
CISA often tests the misconception that emergency changes should still go through full pre-approval or testing — the correct control is post-implementation review and documentation, not pre-approval.
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
✓
Emergency changes are documented with a justification and promptly reviewed after implementation
The best indicator that emergency changes are properly controlled is that they are documented with a justification and promptly reviewed after implementation. Emergency changes, by definition, bypass the normal pre-approval and testing cycle, so the compensating control is retrospective review and documentation to ensure accountability and to catch any issues. This aligns with ITIL and COBIT guidance that emergency changes must be logged, justified, and reviewed post-implementation.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Emergency changes are documented with a justification and promptly reviewed after implementation
Why this is correct
Documenting each emergency change with justification and reviewing it promptly afterwards confirms the control operated: the change was authorised retrospectively and assessed, rather than bypassing governance entirely, which is the strongest evidence of proper control.
- ✗
Emergency changes are approved by the change manager within 24 hours
Why it's wrong here
A 24-hour approval window permits the change to be implemented before any authorisation exists, leaving the emergency change uncontrolled during execution. Change manager approval is appropriate for standard changes, where the approval occurs before, not after, implementation begins.
- ✗
Emergency changes are tested in a production-like environment before implementation
Why it's wrong here
Emergency changes typically bypass pre-implementation testing because the fix is urgent; requiring production-like testing contradicts the emergency definition and delays restoration. Testing before release is the correct control for normal, planned changes, where scheduled windows allow validation without extending outage time.
- ✗
Emergency changes require approval from the CAB before implementation
Why it's wrong here
Requiring full CAB approval before implementation defeats the purpose of an emergency change, which exists to restore service outside the normal CAB cycle. Pre-approval by the CAB is the correct control for routine changes, where scheduled review does not delay urgent remediation.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 934 original CISA practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. 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.