ISACA • CISA
Validates expertise in auditing, controlling, monitoring, and assessing an organization's information technology and business systems. The gold standard for IT audit professionals.
Questions
895
Duration
240 minutes
Passing Score
450/800
Difficulty
ProfessionalLast Updated
Jan 2026
The Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) is ISACA's flagship certification and the globally recognized standard for IT audit, control, assurance, and security professionals. First introduced in 1978, the credential validates a professional's ability to assess vulnerabilities, report on compliance, and institute controls within an enterprise — covering the full scope of information systems auditing, governance, acquisition, operations, and asset protection. More than 151,000 professionals worldwide currently hold the CISA designation, and it has been shortlisted for Best Professional Certification Program by SC Awards Europe and SC Awards North America in 2025.
The certification is specifically designed to demonstrate competency across five critical job practice domains: the IS auditing process, IT governance and management, IS acquisition and development, IS operations and business resilience, and protection of information assets. It has evolved to address emerging technologies including artificial intelligence, cloud computing, blockchain, and IoT security, ensuring holders remain relevant in a rapidly changing threat landscape.
CISA is designed for mid-career to senior IT and information security professionals who perform or manage audit, control, assurance, or security functions. Typical roles include IT auditors, internal auditors, IS audit managers, IT risk and compliance managers, security consultants, and IT governance officers. The certification is particularly valuable for professionals at organizations subject to regulatory oversight — such as financial services, healthcare, and government — where IT audit and compliance functions are critical.
Candidates are not required to meet experience requirements before sitting the exam, making it accessible to professionals who are transitioning into IS audit roles. However, full certification requires five or more years of professional experience in IS auditing, control, or security, making it most appropriate for those with a solid foundation in IT operations, security, or internal audit.
ISACA has no formal educational prerequisites for sitting the CISA exam itself — any candidate may register and attempt the exam regardless of background. However, to achieve full CISA certification after passing, candidates must demonstrate a minimum of five years of professional work experience in information systems auditing, control, assurance, or security. This experience must be verified and submitted within five years of passing the exam.
ISACA offers experience waivers of up to three years for candidates who hold a relevant university degree (two-year or four-year), a graduate degree in IS or IT, or other recognized certifications such as CISM, CISSP, or CRISC. Recommended knowledge before attempting the exam includes a solid understanding of IT infrastructure, information security fundamentals, risk management frameworks (such as COBIT or NIST), and basic business auditing principles. Most successful candidates have at least two to three years of hands-on IT or audit experience prior to sitting the exam.
The CISA exam consists of 150 multiple-choice questions, all with four answer options (A, B, C, D), to be completed in 240 minutes (4 hours). Questions are a mix of knowledge-based items testing recall of frameworks and standards, and scenario-based questions — which typically comprise 60–70% of the exam — requiring candidates to apply audit principles to realistic workplace situations. A small number of questions are unscored research items used for future exam development and do not affect a candidate's score.
The exam is delivered via computer-based testing (CBT) at authorized PSI testing centers worldwide, or as a remotely proctored online exam. Scores are reported on a scale of 200 to 800, with a passing score of 450. The scaled scoring model accounts for question difficulty, so harder questions carry more weight. There is no penalty for incorrect answers. Preliminary pass/fail results are available immediately upon exam completion, with official scores typically posted to a candidate's ISACA account within 5–7 business days. Candidates who do not pass must wait 30 days before retaking and may sit the exam up to four times within a rolling 12-month period.
CISA consistently ranks among the highest-paying IT certifications globally. ISACA reports that CISA holders earn an average annual salary of US$149,000, and 22% of certified professionals report receiving a pay increase following certification. The credential opens doors to senior roles including IT Audit Manager, IS Audit Director, Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), IT Risk Manager, and Compliance Officer across industries with heavy regulatory requirements such as financial services, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure.
The CISA's international recognition — backed by ISACA's global presence and more than four decades of credentialing history — makes it particularly valuable for professionals working in multinational organizations or seeking roles across different regulatory jurisdictions. Compared to alternatives such as the Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) or CRISC, CISA's specific focus on IS audit and control gives it a distinct advantage in technology-forward audit functions. Seventy percent of CISA holders report measurable on-the-job improvement after certification, reflecting the credential's direct applicability to daily audit and governance responsibilities.
5 sample questions with correct answers and explanations. Start a practice session to test yourself across all 895 questions.
1. During a review of the IT change management process, an IS auditor discovers that a critical security patch was implemented over the weekend without following the normal change management process. The IT manager explains that the vendor released an emergency advisory about active exploitation of the vulnerability. What should the auditor's FIRST recommendation be? (Select one!)
Explanation
Emergency changes addressing critical security vulnerabilities with active exploitation are legitimate scenarios for expedited change processes. The auditor's first recommendation should be to verify whether the organization's Emergency Change Advisory Board process was followed. ECAB provides an expedited path for high-impact emergency changes while maintaining governance and documentation requirements. Reporting as an unauthorized change without first determining if emergency procedures were followed would be premature. Requiring normal CAB approval for actively exploited vulnerabilities would introduce unacceptable risk. Documenting as an exception without verification does not address whether proper controls were exercised.
2. Summit Professional Services receives an external audit finding stating that their financial application has a control deficiency where management review of journal entries occurs monthly instead of weekly. The finding notes that although timely detection of errors is delayed, the risk of material misstatement is unlikely but more than remote. How should this finding be classified? (Select one!)
Explanation
This finding should be classified as a significant deficiency because it represents a control deficiency that is important enough to merit attention but is less severe than a material weakness. The description indicates the risk is more than remote but material misstatement is unlikely, which aligns with significant deficiency classification. A material weakness exists when there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement would not be prevented or detected, which is not the case here. A simple control deficiency would not warrant specific attention from management or potential disclosure. Significant deficiencies may be communicated to those charged with governance but do not require the mandatory external disclosure that material weaknesses demand.
3. Litware Corporation's IS auditor is reviewing the risk management process for the data center. The risk register documents the following for a server infrastructure threat: Asset Value of $1,500,000, Exposure Factor of 30%, and Annualized Rate of Occurrence of 0.4. The IT manager proposes implementing redundant power systems costing $250,000 annually. Based on quantitative risk analysis principles, what should the IS auditor conclude about this control investment? (Select one!)
Explanation
Single Loss Expectancy equals Asset Value multiplied by Exposure Factor: $1,500,000 times 0.30 equals $450,000. Annualized Loss Expectancy equals SLE multiplied by ARO: $450,000 times 0.4 equals $180,000. The proposed control costs $250,000 annually, which exceeds the ALE of $180,000. In quantitative risk analysis, a control is generally not cost-justified when its annual cost exceeds the annualized loss expectancy it is designed to mitigate, as the organization would spend more on protection than the expected annual loss. Comparing control cost to SLE alone is incorrect because SLE represents a single incident, not annual expected loss. Exposure Factor percentage is not a direct factor in cost justification decisions.
4. Adatum Global's IS auditor is evaluating an Agile development project using Scrum methodology. The auditor observes that the Product Owner frequently changes requirements during sprints, user stories lack acceptance criteria, and the team does not conduct retrospectives. Which two concerns should the auditor prioritize in the audit report? (Select two!)
Multiple correct answersExplanation
Mid-sprint requirement changes and missing acceptance criteria are the most significant concerns from the observations. In Scrum, the sprint backlog should be stable during the sprint; frequent mid-sprint changes by the Product Owner disrupt team velocity, make planning unreliable, and can lead to incomplete deliverables. User stories without acceptance criteria cannot be properly verified or tested, making it impossible to determine when a story is truly complete and potentially leading to rework or quality issues. While skipping retrospectives prevents continuous improvement, the immediate impacts of unstable requirements and unverifiable deliverables pose greater risks to project success and audit concerns regarding project governance.
5. An IS auditor is reviewing the organization's software integration testing approach. The development team tests modules by starting with the highest-level modules and progressively integrating lower-level modules. The team creates simplified substitute modules to simulate lower-level functionality that hasn't been integrated yet. Which integration testing approach and substitute component type is being used? (Select one!)
Explanation
Top-down integration testing begins with the highest-level modules and progressively integrates lower-level modules. Since lower-level modules may not be ready when testing begins, stubs are used to simulate their functionality. A stub is a simplified substitute that mimics the interface and basic behavior of a lower-level module that hasn't yet been integrated. In contrast, bottom-up testing starts with lowest-level modules and uses drivers to simulate higher-level modules that call them. Sandwich or hybrid testing combines both approaches. Big bang testing integrates all modules simultaneously without incremental integration, which doesn't use substitute components in the manner described.
One-time access to this exam