CISA Practice Question: Information Systems Acquisition, Development, and Implementation
An IS auditor is reviewing an agile software development project. Which of the following practices would BEST help ensure that security controls are adequately addressed?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap is choosing a phase-gate or post-development security activity (like a final security test or design review) instead of the agile-native practice of embedding security into user stories and the definition of done.
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
✓
Including security acceptance criteria in user stories
Embedding security acceptance criteria directly into user stories makes security requirements explicit, testable, and part of the definition of done for every increment, ensuring controls are addressed continuously throughout agile development. This shifts security left and integrates it into the team's normal workflow rather than treating it as a separate phase.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Requiring sign-off from the project sponsor before each sprint review
Why it's wrong here
Sponsor sign-off before each sprint review addresses scope, budget and delivery acceptance, not whether security controls are implemented or tested. It is tempting because governance gates appear to enforce rigour, but security assurance requires sprint-level activities such as threat modelling, secure coding checks and automated testing.
- ✗
Performing a single comprehensive security test after all sprints are complete
Why it's wrong here
A single end-of-project security test defers detection until remediation is costly and late, contradicting agile's incremental delivery. It is tempting because comprehensive testing appears thorough, yet security controls must be verified within each sprint through automated scanning and threat modelling to catch flaws while code is still malleable.
- ✗
Conducting a formal design review at the end of each sprint
Why it's wrong here
Security is verified only after each sprint's code is complete, so flaws are found late and remediation is costly. A formal design review at sprint end cannot influence the design already built. It would suit waterfall phase gates, where design precedes construction and sign-off is a discrete milestone.
- ✓
Including security acceptance criteria in user stories
Why this is correct
Embedding security acceptance criteria in user stories makes controls testable within each sprint's definition of done. This integrates security into the iterative backlog rather than bolting it on later, directly satisfying the need to address controls continuously in agile delivery.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CISA question is part of Courseiva's 934-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam 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.