CISA Protection of Information Assets Practice Question
An organization uses shared accounts for system administration. Which of the following is the BEST control to mitigate the risk of non-repudiation?
⚠ Common exam trap
CISA often tests the distinction between authentication, logging, and accountability; candidates incorrectly assume that logging commands or adding MFA to a shared account provides non-repudiation, when only per-user attribution (e.g., PAM session recording) does.
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
✓
Implementing a privileged access management (PAM) solution with session recording.
A PAM solution with session recording uniquely ties each privileged session to an authenticated individual, even when a shared account is used, because users check out credentials and their keystrokes/commands are captured under their own identity. This provides the attribution needed for non-repudiation, which is the ability to prove who performed a specific action. Password changes, logging, and MFA on the shared account do not identify which individual used it.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Changing the shared account password after each use.
Why it's wrong here
Rotating the shared password after each use still lets any holder act as that account, so individual accountability for logged actions remains absent; non-repudiation requires attributing each action to a named person. It is tempting because frequent rotation limits credential exposure, but that addresses confidentiality, not attribution.
- ✗
Logging all commands executed by the shared account.
Why it's wrong here
Logging commands records what the shared account did but cannot tie an action to a specific administrator, so any holder can deny performing it; non-repudiation needs unique individual credentials. Logging is tempting because it provides an audit trail, yet shared-account logs alone cannot establish who acted.
- ✗
Requiring two-factor authentication for the shared account.
Why it's wrong here
Two-factor authentication proves which credential set was used, but a shared account still cannot attribute an action to an individual, so non-repudiation remains unmet. It is tempting because MFA strengthens authentication against credential theft and is correct when the goal is preventing unauthorised access rather than proving individual accountability.
- ✓
Implementing a privileged access management (PAM) solution with session recording.
Why this is correct
Shared accounts destroy individual accountability, so non-repudiation requires attributing each privileged action to a named person. PAM with session recording achieves this by brokering access through unique credentials while capturing activity, letting administrators act without sharing passwords and enabling forensic attribution.
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.