CISA Practice Question: Information Systems Acquisition, Development, and Implementation
An IS auditor is reviewing the change management process for a critical financial application. Which of the following findings would be of GREATEST concern?
⚠ Common exam trap
CISA often tests the misconception that emergency changes are acceptable without any approval, but the real issue is the lack of subsequent CAB approval, which is a critical control gap.
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 implemented without subsequent CAB approval
Emergency changes implemented without subsequent CAB approval represent a critical control failure because emergency changes bypass the normal review and approval process, and if they are not retroactively reviewed, unauthorized or risky changes may remain in production. This creates a significant risk of undetected errors, fraud, or security vulnerabilities in a critical financial application. The lack of post-implementation approval means no oversight exists for changes that could directly affect financial reporting or data integrity.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Standard changes are documented but not tracked individually
Why it's wrong here
Standard changes are pre-authorised, low-risk and repeatable, so documenting them without individual tracking is accepted practise under ITIL. It tempts auditors who apply the same rigour to every change type, yet the genuine concern is unauthorised changes reaching production.
- ✗
Change requests are logged in a spreadsheet instead of a dedicated system
Why it's wrong here
A spreadsheet can still enforce logging, approval and audit trails if adequately controlled; the tool itself is not the control weakness. This distractor tempts auditors focused on technology, but the greatest concern is changes deployed without any approval or segregation of duties.
- ✓
Emergency changes are implemented without subsequent CAB approval
Why this is correct
Emergency changes bypassing subsequent CAB review leave the most critical control gap: changes reach production without retrospective scrutiny, risking undocumented, untested modifications to a financial application. Other findings are less severe because normal changes still receive approval before deployment.
- ✗
The CAB meets only once per month
Why it's wrong here
Monthly CAB meetings can still approve changes through emergency or delegated procedures, so frequency alone does not demonstrate a control failure. This distractor tempts auditors who equate slow cadence with weak governance, but the real concern is changes bypassing approval entirely.
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.