Hubbry Logo
Information security auditInformation security auditMain
Open search
Information security audit
Community hub
Information security audit
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Information security audit
Information security audit
Information security audit
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

An information security audit is an audit of the level of information security in an organization. It is an independent review and examination of system records, activities, and related documents. These audits are intended to improve the level of information security, avoid improper information security designs, and optimize the efficiency of the security safeguards and security processes.[1]

Within the broad scope of auditing information security there are multiple types of audits, multiple objectives for different audits, etc. Most commonly the controls being audited can be categorized as technical, physical and administrative. Auditing information security covers topics from auditing the physical security of data centers to auditing the logical security of databases, and highlights key components to look for and different methods for auditing these areas.

When centered on the Information technology (IT) aspects of information security, it can be seen as a part of an information technology audit. It is often then referred to as an information technology security audit or a computer security audit. However, information security encompasses much more than IT.

The audit process

[edit]

Step 1: Preliminary audit assessment

[edit]

The auditor is responsible for assessing the current technological maturity level of a company during the first stage of the audit. This stage is used to assess the current status of the company and helps identify the required time, cost and scope of an audit. First, you need to identify the minimum security requirements:[2]

  • Security policy and standards
  • Organizational and Personal security
  • Communication, Operation and Asset management
  • Physical and environmental security
  • Access control and Compliance
  • IT systems development and maintenance
  • IT security incident management
  • Disaster recovery and business continuity management
  • Risk management

Step 2: Planning & preparation

[edit]

The auditor should plan a company's audit based on the information found in the previous step. Planning an audit helps the auditor obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence for each company's specific circumstances. It helps predict audit costs at a reasonable level, assign the proper manpower and time line and avoid misunderstandings with clients.[3]

An auditor should be adequately educated about the company and its critical business activities before conducting a data center review. The objective of the data center is to align data center activities with the goals of the business while maintaining the security and integrity of critical information and processes. To adequately determine whether the client's goal is being achieved, the auditor should perform the following before conducting the review:

  • Meet with IT management to determine possible areas of concern
  • Review the current IT organization chart
  • Review job descriptions of data center employees
  • Research all operating systems, software applications, and data center equipment operating within the data center
  • Review the company's IT policies and procedures
  • Evaluate the company's IT budget and systems planning documentation
  • Review the data center's disaster recovery plan

Step 3: Establishing audit objectives

[edit]

In the next step, the auditor outlines the objectives of the audit after that conducting a review of a corporate data center takes place. Auditors consider multiple factors that relate to data center procedures and activities that potentially identify audit risks in the operating environment and assess the controls in place that mitigate those risks. After thorough testing and analysis, the auditor is able to adequately determine if the data center maintains proper controls and is operating efficiently and effectively.

Following is a list of objectives the auditor should review:

  • Personnel procedures and responsibilities, including systems and cross-functional training
  • Change management processes are in place and followed by IT and management personnel
  • Appropriate backup procedures are in place to minimize downtime and prevent the loss of important data
  • The data center has adequate physical security controls to prevent unauthorized access to the data center
  • Adequate environmental controls are in place to ensure equipment is protected from fire and flooding

Step 4: Performing the review

[edit]

The next step is to collect evidence to satisfy data center audit objectives. This involves traveling to the data center location and observing processes within the data center. The following review procedures should be conducted to satisfy the pre-determined audit objectives:

  • Data centre personnel – All data center personnel should be authorized to access the data center (key cards, login ID's, secure passwords, etc.). Datacenter employees are adequately educated about data center equipment and properly perform their jobs. Vendor service personnel are supervised when doing work on data center equipment. The auditor should observe and interview data center employees to satisfy their objectives.
  • Equipment – The auditor should verify that all data center equipment is working properly and effectively. Equipment utilization reports, equipment inspection for damage and functionality, system downtime records and equipment performance measurements all help the auditor determine the state of data center equipment. Additionally, the auditor should interview employees to determine if preventative maintenance policies are in place and performed.
  • Policies and Procedures – All data center policies and procedures should be documented and located at the data center. Important documented procedures include data center personnel job responsibilities, back up policies, security policies, employee termination policies, system operating procedures and an overview of operating systems.
  • Physical security / environmental controls – The auditor should assess the security of the client's data center. Physical security includes bodyguards, locked cages, man traps, single entrances, bolted-down equipment, and computer monitoring systems. Additionally, environmental controls should be in place to ensure the security of data center equipment. These include Air conditioning units, raised floors, humidifiers and an uninterruptible power supply.
  • Backup procedures – The auditor should verify that the client has backup procedures in place in the case of system failure. Clients may maintain a backup data center at a separate location that allows them to instantaneously continue operations in the instance of system failure

Step 5: Preparing the Audit Report

[edit]

After the audit examination is completed, the audit findings and suggestions for corrective actions can be communicated to responsible stakeholders in a formal meeting. This ensures better understanding and support of the audit recommendations. It also gives the audited organization an opportunity to express its views on the issues raised.

Writing a report after such a meeting and describing where agreements have been reached on all audit issues can greatly enhance audit effectiveness. Exit conferences also help finalize recommendations that are practical and feasible.[4]

Step 6: Issuing the review report

[edit]

The data center review report should summarize the auditor's findings and be similar in format to a standard review report. The review report should be dated as of the completion of the auditor's inquiry and procedures. It should state what the review entailed and explain that a review provides only "limited assurance" to third parties.

Typically, a data center review report consolidates the entirety of the audit. It also offers recommendations surrounding proper implementation of physical safeguards and advises the client on appropriate roles and responsibilities of its personnel. Its contents may include:[5]

  • The auditors' procedures and findings
  • The auditors' recommendations
  • Objective, scope, and methodologies
  • Overview/conclusions

The report may optionally include rankings of the security vulnerabilities identified throughout the performance of the audit and the urgency of the tasks necessary to address them. Rankings like "high", "low", and "medium" can be used to describe the imperativeness of the tasks.[6]

Who performs audits

[edit]

Generally, computer security audits are performed by:

  1. Federal or State Regulators
    • Information security audits would primarily be prepared by the partners of these regulators.
    • Examples include: Certified accountants, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Federal Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), etc.
  2. Corporate Internal Auditors [7]
    • If the information security audit is an internal audit, it may be performed by internal auditors employed by the organization.
    • Examples include: Certificated accountants, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Certified Internet Audit Professional (CIAP)
  3. External Auditors
    • Typically, third-party experts employed by an independent organization and specializing in the field of data security are hired when state or federal auditors are not accessible.
  4. Consultants
    • Outsourcing the technology auditing where the organization lacks the specialized skill set.

Jobs and certifications in information security

[edit]

Information Security Officer (ISO)

[edit]

Information Security Officer (ISO) is a relatively new position, which has emerged in organizations to deal in the aftermath of chaotic growth in information technology and network communication. The role of the ISO has been very nebulous since the problem that they were created to address was not defined clearly. The role of an ISO has become one of following the dynamics of the security environment and keeping the risk posture balanced for the organization.[8]

Certifications

[edit]

Information systems audits combine the efforts and skill sets from the accounting and technology fields. Professionals from both fields rely on one another to ensure the security of the information and data.With this collaboration, the security of the information system has proven to increase over time. In relation to the information systems audit, the role of the auditor is to examine the company's controls of the security program. Furthermore, the auditor discloses the operating effectiveness of these controls in an audit report. The Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA), an Information Technology professional organization, promotes gaining expertise through various certifications.[9] The benefits of these certifications are applicable to external and internal personnel of the system. Examples of certifications that are relevant to information security audits include:

  • Certified Information Security Manager (CISM)
  • Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC)
  • Certified in the Governance of Enterprise IT (CGEIT)
  • Certified Information System Auditor (CISA)
  • CSX (Cybersecurity Nexus Fundamentals)
  • CSXP (Cybersecurity Nexus Practitioner)

The audited systems

[edit]

Network vulnerabilities

[edit]
  • Interception: Data that is being transmitted over the network is vulnerable to being intercepted by an unintended third party who could put the data to harmful use.
  • Availability: Networks have become wide-spanning, crossing hundreds or thousands of miles which many rely on to access company information, and lost connectivity could cause business interruption.
  • Access/entry point: Networks are vulnerable to unwanted access. A weak point in the network can make that information available to intruders. It can also provide an entry point for viruses and Trojan horses.[10]

Controls

[edit]
  • Interception controls: Interception can be partially deterred by physical access controls at data centers and offices, including where communication links terminate and where the network wiring and distributions are located. Encryption also helps to secure wireless networks.
  • Availability controls: The best control for this is to have excellent network architecture and monitoring. The network should have redundant paths between every resource and an access point and automatic routing to switch the traffic to the available path without loss of data or time.
  • Access/entry point controls: Most network controls are put at the point where the network connects with an external network. These controls limit the traffic that passes through the network. These can include firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and antivirus software.

The auditor should ask certain questions to better understand the network and its vulnerabilities. The auditor should first assess the extent of the network is and how it is structured. A network diagram can assist the auditor in this process. The next question an auditor should ask is what critical information this network must protect. Things such as enterprise systems, mail servers, web servers, and host applications accessed by customers are typically areas of focus. It is also important to know who has access and to what parts. Do customers and vendors have access to systems on the network? Can employees access information from home? Lastly, the auditor should assess how the network is connected to external networks and how it is protected. Most networks are at least connected to the internet, which could be a point of vulnerability. These are critical questions in protecting networks.

Segregation of duties

[edit]

When you have a function that deals with money either incoming or outgoing it is very important to make sure that duties are segregated to minimize and hopefully prevent fraud. One of the key ways to ensure proper segregation of duties (SoD) from a systems perspective is to review individuals' access authorizations. Certain systems such as SAP claim to come with the capability to perform SoD tests, but the functionality provided is elementary, requiring very time-consuming queries to be built and is limited to the transaction level only with little or no use of the object or field values assigned to the user through the transaction, which often produces misleading results. For complex systems such as SAP, it is often preferred to use tools developed specifically to assess and analyze SoD conflicts and other types of system activity. For other systems or for multiple system formats you should monitor which users may have superuser access to the system giving them unlimited access to all aspects of the system. Also, developing a matrix for all functions highlighting the points where proper segregation of duties has been breached will help identify potential material weaknesses by cross-checking each employee's available accesses. This is as important if not more so in the development function as it is in production. Ensuring that people who develop the programs are not the ones who are authorized to pull it into production is key to preventing unauthorized programs into the production environment where they can be used to perpetrate fraud.

Types of audits

[edit]

Encryption and IT audit

[edit]

In assessing the need for a client to implement encryption policies for their organization, the Auditor should conduct an analysis of the client's risk and data value. Companies with multiple external users, e-commerce applications, and sensitive customer/employee information should maintain rigid encryption policies aimed at encrypting the correct data at the appropriate stage in the data collection process.[11]

Auditors should continually evaluate their client's encryption policies and procedures. Companies that are heavily reliant on e-commerce systems and wireless networks are extremely vulnerable to theft and loss of critical information in transmission. Policies and procedures should be documented and carried out to ensure that all transmitted data is protected.

The auditor should verify that management has controls in place over the data encryption management process. Access to keys should require dual control, keys should be composed of two separate components and should be maintained on a computer that is not accessible to programmers or outside users. Furthermore, management should attest that encryption policies ensure data protection at the desired level and verify that the cost of encrypting the data does not exceed the value of the information itself. All data that is required to be maintained for an extensive amount of time should be encrypted and transported to a remote location. Procedures should be in place to guarantee that all encrypted sensitive information arrives at its location and is stored properly. Finally, the auditor should attain verification from management that the encryption system is strong, not attackable, and compliant with all local and international laws and regulations.

Logical security audit

[edit]

Just as it sounds, a logical security audit follows a format in an organized procedure. The first step in an audit of any system is to seek to understand its components and its structure. When auditing logical security the auditor should investigate what security controls are in place, and how they work. In particular, the following areas are key points in auditing logical security:

  • Passwords: Every company should have written policies regarding passwords, and employees' use of them. Passwords should not be shared and employees should have mandatory scheduled changes. Employees should have user rights that are in line with their job functions. They should also be aware of proper log on/ log off procedures. Also helpful are security tokens, small devices that authorized users of computer programs or networks carry to assist in identity confirmation. They can also store cryptographic keys and biometric data. The most popular type of security token (RSA's SecurID) displays a number that changes every minute. Users are authenticated by entering a personal identification number and the number on the token.[12]
  • Termination Procedures: Proper termination procedures ensure that old employees can no longer access the network. This can be done by changing passwords and codes. Also, all id cards and badges that are in circulation should be documented and accounted for.
  • Special User Accounts: Special User Accounts and other privileged accounts should be monitored and have proper controls in place.
  • Remote Access: Remote access is often a point where intruders can enter a system. The logical security tools used for remote access should be very strict. Remote access should be logged.

Specific tools used in network security

[edit]

Network security is achieved by various tools including firewalls and proxy servers, encryption, logical security and access controls, anti-virus software, and auditing systems such as log management.

Firewalls are a very basic part of network security. They are often placed between the private local network and the internet. Firewalls provide a flow-through for traffic in which it can be authenticated, monitored, logged, and reported. Some different types of firewalls include network layer firewalls, screened subnet firewalls, packet filter firewalls, dynamic packet filtering firewalls, hybrid firewalls, transparent firewalls, and application-level firewalls.

The process of encryption involves converting plain text into a series of unreadable characters known as the ciphertext. If the encrypted text is stolen or attained while in transit, the content is unreadable to the viewer. This guarantees secure transmission and is extremely useful to companies sending/receiving critical information. Once encrypted information arrives at its intended recipient, the decryption process is deployed to restore the ciphertext back to plaintext.

Proxy servers hide the true address of the client workstation and can also act as a firewall. Proxy server firewalls have special software to enforce authentication. Proxy server firewalls act as a middle man for user requests.

Antivirus software programs such as McAfee and Symantec software locate and dispose of malicious content. These virus protection programs run live updates to ensure they have the latest information about known computer viruses.

Logical security includes software safeguards for an organization's systems, including user ID and password access, authentication, access rights and authority levels. These measures are to ensure that only authorized users are able to perform actions or access information in a network or a workstation.

Behavioral audit

[edit]

Vulnerabilities in an organization's  IT systems are often not attributed to technical weaknesses, but rather related to individual behavior of employees within the organization. A simple example of this is users leaving their computers unlocked or being vulnerable to phishing attacks. As a result, a thorough InfoSec audit will frequently include a penetration test in which auditors attempt to gain access to as much of the system as possible, from both the perspective of a typical employee as well as an outsider.[13] A behavioral audit ensures preventative measures are in place such as a phishing webinar, where employees are made aware of what phishing is and how to detect it.

System and process assurance audits combine elements from IT infrastructure and application/information security audits and use diverse controls in categories such as Completeness, Accuracy, Validity (V) and Restricted access (CAVR).[14]

Auditing application security

[edit]

Application security

[edit]

Application Security centers on three main functions:

  • Programming
  • Processing
  • Access

When it comes to programming it is important to ensure proper physical and password protection exists around servers and mainframes for the development and update of key systems. Having physical access security at one's data center or office such as electronic badges and badge readers, security guards, choke points, and security cameras is vitally important to ensuring the security of applications and data. Then one needs to have security around changes to the system. Those usually have to do with proper security access to make the changes and having proper authorization procedures in place for pulling programming changes from development through test and finally into production.

With processing, it is important that procedures and monitoring of a few different aspects such as the input of falsified or erroneous data, incomplete processing, duplicate transactions and untimely processing are in place. Making sure that input is randomly reviewed or that all processing has proper approval is a way to ensure this. It is important to be able to identify incomplete processing and ensure that proper procedures are in place for either completing it or deleting it from the system if it was in error. There should also be procedures to identify and correct duplicate entries. Finally, when it comes to processing that is not being done on a timely basis one should back-track the associated data to see where the delay is coming from and identify whether or not this delay creates any control concerns.

Finally, access, it is important to realize that maintaining network security against unauthorized access is one of the major focuses for companies as threats can come from a few sources. First, one has internal unauthorized access. It is very important to have system access passwords that must be changed regularly and that there is a way to track access and changes so one is able to identify who made what changes. All activity should be logged. The second arena to be concerned with is remote access, people accessing one's system from the outside through the internet. Setting up firewalls and password protection to on-line data changes are key to protecting against unauthorized remote access. One way to identify weaknesses in access controls is to bring in a hacker to try and crack one's system by either gaining entry to the building and using an internal terminal or hacking in from the outside through remote access.

Summary

[edit]

An information security audit can be defined by examining the different aspects of information security. External and internal professionals within an institution  have the responsibility of maintaining and inspecting the adequacy and effectiveness of information security. As in any institution, there are various controls to be implemented and maintained. To secure the information, an institution is expected to apply security measures to circumvent outside intervention. By and large, the two concepts of application security and segregation of duties are both in many ways connected, and they both have the same goal: to protect the integrity of the company's data and to prevent fraud. For application security, it has to do with preventing unauthorized access to hardware and software through having proper security measures both physical and electronic in place. With segregation of duties, it is primarily a physical review of individuals' access to the systems and processing and ensuring that there are no overlaps that could lead to fraud. The type of audit the individual performs determines the specific procedures and tests to be executed throughout the audit process.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Information security audit

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An information security audit is an independent review and examination of an organization's information systems, records, activities, and related documents to assess the adequacy of , ensure compliance with established policies, procedures, and regulations, and identify vulnerabilities or improvements needed to protect information assets. These audits play a critical role in an organization's overall strategy, enabling the verification that security and privacy controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and producing the desired outcomes to safeguard , , and of data. They help mitigate threats such as cyberattacks, data breaches, and non-compliance penalties by providing objective evidence for , continuous monitoring, and system processes. In practice, audits support compliance with federal mandates like the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) and international benchmarks, fostering a proactive approach to cybersecurity. The audit process is structured and systematic, typically encompassing four main phases: , which involves defining the scope, assembling resources, and gathering initial artifacts like policies and diagrams; , where assessment objectives, methods, and procedures are tailored based on levels and categorization; execution, employing techniques such as examination of , interviews with personnel, and testing of mechanisms to collect ; and , which evaluates findings, documents strengths and weaknesses, and generates reports with recommendations for remediation. This methodology ensures repeatability and efficiency across the development life cycle, from design to operations. Information security audits are often aligned with authoritative frameworks, including the NIST Special Publication 800-53 for control assessments in federal systems and ISO/IEC 27001 for establishing, implementing, and certifying an Information Security Management System (ISMS) through third-party evaluations. Under ISO/IEC 27001, audits focus on risk treatment, continual improvement of the ISMS, and protection of information in all forms, with certification requiring accredited external validation to confirm adherence to the standard's requirements. Professional bodies like emphasize integrating audits with IT governance to evaluate controls across access management, incident response, and monitoring, often using tools like the Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) framework for assurance.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

An audit is defined as a systematic, independent, and documented process for obtaining and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which specified criteria are fulfilled. This evaluation focuses on an organization's policies, procedures, controls, and practices to ensure the , , and of its information assets. In the context of standards like ISO/IEC 27001, it assesses the effectiveness of an information security management system (ISMS) in managing risks to across various formats, including digital, cloud-based, and physical records. The scope of an information security audit encompasses technical elements such as network configurations and software vulnerabilities, procedural aspects like policy implementation and incident response plans, and human factors including employee training and access management. It differs from penetration testing, which involves simulated cyberattacks to exploit weaknesses, by providing a broader, compliance-oriented review rather than targeted attack emulation. Similarly, it extends beyond , which primarily identifies and prioritizes potential threats, by verifying the operational effectiveness of controls through evidence-based examination. Key terminology in information security audits includes audit criteria, which are the standards or benchmarks—such as those outlined in ISO/IEC 27001—against which the audit evaluates the ISMS. Evidence collection refers to the gathering of objective, verifiable data, including records, interviews, and observations, to support findings. Audits typically aim for reasonable assurance, a high level of confidence that controls are effective without claiming absolute certainty, as the latter is unattainable due to inherent limitations in testing all possibilities. Historically, audits evolved from financial and electronic (EDP) audits in the 1970s, which focused on and internal controls amid early computing adoption. By the and , with the rise of networked systems and connectivity, audits shifted toward IT-specific risks like and access controls. Post-2000, advancements in , IoT, and cyber threats expanded audits to include continuous monitoring and , reflecting the growing complexity of digital environments.

Importance and Objectives

Information security audits play a vital role in safeguarding organizations against escalating cyber threats by systematically identifying vulnerabilities and weaknesses in before they can be exploited. These audits reduce the risk of data breaches, which had a global average cost of USD 4.44 million in 2025, representing a 9% decrease from the previous year. By proactively addressing such risks, audits enhance an organization's overall posture and support continuous improvement in cybersecurity practices. Recent reports highlight that extensive use of AI and in can save up to USD 1.9 million per breach, while unmonitored "shadow AI" increases costs by an average of USD 670,000. A key aspect of their importance lies in ensuring , particularly with frameworks like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). GDPR mandates appropriate technical and organizational measures to secure , with non-compliance risking fines up to 4% of global annual turnover. Similarly, HIPAA's Security Rule requires covered entities to implement administrative, physical, and technical safeguards for electronic , including periodic risk assessments to prevent breaches. Audits help organizations meet these requirements, avoiding penalties and legal repercussions while building stakeholder trust through demonstrated commitment to data protection. They also uncover areas for enhancement, such as outdated policies or insufficient employee training, fostering a culture of compliance. The primary objectives of audits include verifying the effectiveness of existing , assessing adherence to industry standards and internal policies, and recommending targeted improvements to mitigate identified risks. These audits evaluate whether mechanisms like , access controls, and incident response plans adequately protect assets against threats. Additionally, they provide assurance to management and external parties by confirming compliance and operational resilience, often through formalized reports such as SOC 2 attestations, which examine controls relevant to , , integrity, , and for service organizations. Beyond compliance, audits deliver broader benefits by enabling proactive , which can significantly lower breach-related costs—for instance, organizations with tested incident response plans saved an average of USD 2.66 million per in 2025. This approach not only prevents financial losses from incidents but also aligns security efforts with business continuity goals, ensuring uninterrupted operations and sustained trust from customers and partners.

Roles and Responsibilities

Professionals Involved

Information security audits involve a range of professionals who ensure the evaluation of an organization's security posture is thorough, , and aligned with established standards. Internal auditors, typically employees within the organization, conduct in-house assessments to identify vulnerabilities and compliance gaps, maintaining objectivity to support management in . These auditors must adhere to principles of and ethical conduct as outlined by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), which requires freedom from interference in determining audit scope, performing work, and communicating results. External auditors, often from third-party firms such as , , or , provide an impartial perspective by evaluating against industry benchmarks, particularly for or high-stakes engagements. Their role emphasizes independence to avoid conflicts of interest, offering unbiased insights that internal teams might overlook due to familiarity with systems. The (CISO) oversees the overall audit process, ensuring alignment with the organization's security strategy and translating findings into actionable . Audit teams typically comprise lead auditors who coordinate efforts, subject matter experts such as network or application security specialists who provide technical depth, and management reviewers who validate findings for strategic relevance. Organizations may choose in-house teams for ongoing, cost-effective monitoring or outsource to external experts for objective, specialized evaluations, with independence requirements prohibiting auditors from auditing their own prior work. Relevant certifications, such as those from ISACA or IIA, often underpin the qualifications of these professionals.

Certifications and Qualifications

Professionals conducting information security audits require certifications that demonstrate proficiency in auditing IT controls, , and ethical hacking techniques. The Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA), administered by , is a globally recognized credential focused on auditing, control, and assurance of information systems. The CISA examination comprises 150 multiple-choice questions administered over four hours, covering five domains: the information systems auditing process; governance and management of IT; information systems acquisition, development, and implementation; information systems operations, maintenance, and service management; and protection of information assets. To obtain certification, candidates must pass the exam, pay a US$50 application fee, and provide evidence of at least five years of professional experience in information systems auditing, control, or security, with waivers available for education or other certifications. Maintenance of the CISA requires earning a minimum of 20 continuing professional education (CPE) credits annually and 120 CPE credits over a three-year reporting cycle, along with annual maintenance fees of US$45 for members or US$85 for non-members. The Certified Information Security Manager (CISM), also offered by , targets professionals in roles and emphasizes , , and program development. The CISM exam consists of 150 multiple-choice questions over four hours, addressing four domains: information security ; information security ; information security program development and management; and information security incident management. Eligibility requires passing the exam within five years, submitting an application with a US$50 fee, and verifying five years of work experience, including three years in a management role. Renewal follows the same ISACA CPE structure as CISA, mandating 20 CPE credits per year and 120 over three years, with equivalent annual fees. For hands-on technical skills relevant to identifying vulnerabilities during audits, the (CEH) certification from equips professionals with knowledge of ethical hacking methodologies. The CEH exam features 125 multiple-choice questions over four hours, evaluating competencies in threats and attack vectors, attack detection and exploitation, vulnerability analysis, and system penetration testing. Candidates are recommended to have at least two years of experience, though formal prerequisites are not required; the certification is valid for three years. Renewal entails accumulating 120 (ECE) credits over the three-year cycle, obtainable through training, webinars, or publishing, or by retaking the exam. Beyond certifications, essential qualifications for information security auditors include a bachelor's degree in , , or a related discipline, which provides foundational knowledge in systems and networks. Practical experience is critical, typically requiring five or more years in IT auditing, security operations, or related fields for senior audit positions, to ensure competence in assessing controls and risks. Proficiency in established frameworks such as the for and for IT governance and control objectives is also fundamental, enabling auditors to evaluate organizational compliance and effectiveness. As of 2025, certifications are evolving to address contemporary challenges, with updates integrating coverage of AI-driven threats—such as generative AI in attack vectors—and risks, including needs, to prepare auditors for advanced threat landscapes. For instance, the CEH v13 edition incorporates AI-specific modules on hacking AI systems and using AI tools like ShellGPT for penetration testing.

Audit Process

Planning and Preparation

The planning and preparation phase of an information security audit establishes the foundation for a structured, effective evaluation by defining objectives, boundaries, and resources to ensure alignment with organizational goals and risk management needs. This phase typically begins with a preliminary assessment to identify key risks, such as threats to data confidentiality, integrity, and availability, through initial reviews of existing policies, prior audit findings, and system categorizations based on impact levels (low, moderate, or high). Scope definition follows, narrowing the audit to specific assets, processes, or domains—such as network infrastructure or access controls—while excluding low-risk areas to optimize efficiency. In the planning stage, auditors develop a detailed timeline, allocate budgets for tools and personnel, and assign team members with relevant expertise, such as certified information systems auditors (CISAs). A critical deliverable is the audit charter or engagement letter, which outlines the audit's purpose, authority, responsibilities, and high-level objectives, often approved by senior management or governance bodies to ensure independence and accountability. Resource allocation considers factors like staff availability and the need for external specialists, prioritizing high-impact systems through a risk-based approach that weighs potential vulnerabilities against business criticality. Audit frequency is typically determined by risk levels and standards, such as annual internal audits under ISO/IEC 27001 or continuous monitoring for high-impact systems per NIST guidelines. For instance, under standards like ISO/IEC 27001, internal audits are typically conducted annually, with full certification audits every three years, using risk-based approaches and sampling for efficiency. Best practices for cybersecurity audit and inspection schedules vary depending on risk level, industry, applicable regulations, organizational size, and complexity. Common recommendations include monthly vulnerability scanning (especially for high-risk assets), continuous monitoring, log reviews, and access control checks to detect emerging threats quickly; quarterly authenticated vulnerability scans, internal reviews, penetration testing (particularly in high-risk industries such as finance or healthcare), and compliance-specific audits (for example, PCI DSS requires quarterly internal and external vulnerability scans); and annual comprehensive cybersecurity audits, penetration testing (serving as a minimum standard in frameworks like ISO/IEC 27001, PCI DSS, and HIPAA), internal audits (as required under ISO/IEC 27001), and full compliance assessments. Additional inspections should be event-triggered (e.g., after major changes, incidents, or mergers). Continuous monitoring supplements scheduled activities. Frequency generally increases with higher risk, handling of sensitive data, or stricter regulatory requirements (e.g., more frequent in finance or government sectors). Preparation involves thorough document review, including policies, procedures, and prior compliance reports, alongside to secure buy-in and access. Key activities include identifying applicable standards, such as the controls in ISO/IEC 27001 Annex A for or NIST SP 800-53 for federal systems, to guide the evaluation criteria. Risk-based scoping further refines focus on high-impact areas, such as those with elevated threat exposure, by integrating quantitative risk assessments and qualitative factors like regulatory requirements. Common challenges in this phase include resource constraints, which can limit team size or tool access, and , where expanding requirements dilute focus and extend timelines. To mitigate these, best practices emphasize the use of software for tracking tasks, automating , and facilitating , alongside clear to define boundaries and minimize disruptions. Additionally, conducting preliminary surveys or interviews with IT leaders helps align the with overall security objectives, ensuring the process supports broader efforts.

Execution and Review

The execution phase of an information security audit, often referred to as fieldwork, involves the hands-on collection and evaluation of evidence to assess the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of . Guided by the scope established in , auditors perform activities such as interviews with personnel, direct observations of processes, and technical testing to verify compliance with policies and standards. This phase ensures that the audit provides objective, evidence-based insights into the organization's posture. Fieldwork typically begins with control evaluation through structured techniques like walkthroughs and sampling. Walkthroughs trace a transaction or from initiation to completion to confirm control application, while sampling selects representative items for detailed review to draw inferences about the . Auditors also conduct vulnerability scanning using automated tools to identify potential weaknesses in systems, networks, and applications, such as open ports or outdated software, which helps prioritize risks. These steps focus on gathering sufficient, appropriate evidence to support audit conclusions, including logs, configuration files, and access records. Key techniques in this phase include compliance testing and substantive testing. Compliance testing verifies whether controls exist and are adhered to, such as checking if access controls are enforced per policy through policy reviews and user permission audits. Substantive testing goes further to assess whether controls operate effectively to achieve objectives, for example, by simulating unauthorized access attempts or analyzing transaction logs for anomalies. Findings are documented contemporaneously with evidence, such as screenshots of scan results or interview notes, to maintain an that allows independent verification and reproducibility. During execution, auditors commonly detect non-compliance issues, such as inadequate control implementation or procedural lapses, through discrepancies in . Root cause analysis is applied to these findings to identify underlying factors, like insufficient or gaps, enabling targeted recommendations rather than superficial fixes. Ensuring a complete —through organized workpapers and cross-referenced documentation—mitigates risks of incomplete and supports the audit's defensibility. In contexts involving automated agents, including LLM-based services that generate or transform security-relevant records, auditors may extend evidence collection to include provenance mechanisms. These mechanisms bind outputs to specific system identities and configurations, such as versioned configuration baselines, generation logs, and cryptographic attestations (for example, signing keys referenced through decentralized identifiers (DIDs)) to strengthen the audit trail and support independent verification.

Reporting and Follow-up

The reporting phase of an information security audit involves compiling and communicating the results derived from the execution and activities to relevant stakeholders. Audit reports typically include an that provides a high-level overview of the audit objectives, scope, key findings, and overall conclusions, ensuring accessibility for non-technical audiences such as . Detailed findings sections articulate observations using a structured format: the condition (what was observed), criteria (expected standards), cause (root reasons for discrepancies), and effect (potential risks or impacts), supported by evidence from testing. Severity ratings are assigned to findings to prioritize remediation, commonly categorized as high, medium, or low risk based on the potential impact to , , or of assets. Recommendations follow each finding, offering actionable steps to address vulnerabilities, such as implementing specific controls or process improvements, often including management action plans with timelines and responsibilities. Reports are distributed on a need-to-know basis to process owners, senior executives, the , and the board, with the approving the final version to maintain objectivity and . The follow-up phase ensures that identified issues are resolved, involving systematic monitoring of remediation efforts by the auditee . Auditors maintain an assurance findings register to track the status of each issue—such as outstanding, partially implemented, fully implemented, or closed—along with assigned owners, due dates, and progress updates. Remediation plans are monitored through periodic reviews, where provides evidence of corrective actions, and auditors verify effectiveness via re-testing of controls or independent validation. Closure is confirmed only after demonstrating that risks have been adequately mitigated, with unresolved high-risk items escalated to governance bodies. Timelines for remediation are established based on severity to minimize exposure, often ranging from weeks to months for critical issues. Best practices emphasize clear, actionable language in reports and follow-up communications to facilitate understanding and compliance, while incorporating metrics such as control effectiveness scores to quantify improvements over time. Alignment with frameworks like and the Institute of Internal Auditors' standards ensures a structured approach, including defined roles via RACI matrices for in the process.

Audited Domains

Network and Infrastructure Security

Network and infrastructure security audits evaluate the protective measures safeguarding an organization's IT backbone, including hardware, connectivity, and foundational systems against unauthorized access and disruptions. Key audited elements encompass firewalls, which filter inbound and outbound traffic based on predefined security rules; intrusion detection systems (IDS), which monitor network traffic for malicious activities and policy violations; and access controls, which enforce restrictions on who or what can connect to network resources. These components are critical for maintaining the and of , as outlined in federal security guidelines. Auditors scrutinize vulnerabilities such as unpatched software, which exposes systems to known exploits, and weak configurations, including default credentials or overly permissive rules that allow unintended access. For instance, firewalls may suffer from misconfigured rulesets permitting spoofed IP addresses or fragmented packets, while IDS can be evaded through encrypted or high-volume denial-of-service attempts. Access controls often reveal gaps in enforcing least privilege, enabling lateral movement by attackers once initial entry is gained. These issues, if unaddressed, can lead to data breaches or service interruptions, emphasizing the need for regular assessments. Effective controls mitigate these risks through , which isolates sensitive areas using subnetworks and boundary protections to limit breach propagation; in transit, adhering to standards like TLS 1.3 for securing communications against ; continuous monitoring of logs to detect anomalies; and segregation of duties (), ensuring no single role controls all aspects of network changes to prevent insider threats or errors. Segmentation, for example, employs firewalls or virtual local area networks (VLANs) to enforce isolation, while SoD requires separate approvals for configuration updates. Log monitoring involves centralized collection and for timely alerts, enhancing overall resilience. Audit techniques include port scanning to identify open ports and running services, revealing potential entry points, and via packet sniffing to examine flows for unauthorized patterns or unencrypted data. Common findings involve unnecessary open ports, such as those exposing , and misconfigured routers with default settings or absent access lists, which auditors validate through tools like for scanning and for analysis. These discoveries prompt recommendations for rule hardening and patching to align with best practices.

Application and Software Security

Application and software security audits evaluate the security posture of software systems, focusing on identifying vulnerabilities in code and configurations that could be exploited by attackers. These audits examine elements such as , application programming interfaces (APIs), and databases to ensure they adhere to secure development practices. For instance, auditors assess whether APIs properly enforce access controls and whether databases are protected against unauthorized data manipulation. Common threats targeted in these audits include injection attacks, such as , where malicious input alters database queries, and (XSS), which allows attackers to inject harmful scripts into web pages viewed by other users. These vulnerabilities often stem from inadequate input handling and are among the most critical risks outlined in the Top 10. To mitigate them, audits verify the implementation of controls like input validation, which sanitizes user inputs to prevent malicious code execution, and secure coding standards that promote practices such as using parameterized queries for database interactions. mechanisms are also scrutinized to ensure robust session management and protection against . Audit specifics involve a combination of (SAST), which analyzes without execution to detect issues like buffer overflows or hardcoded credentials, and (DAST), which tests running applications for runtime vulnerabilities. Penetration testing is often integrated to simulate real-world attacks, such as attempting XSS exploits through API endpoints. Common findings include hardcoded credentials embedded in code, which expose sensitive information, and buffer overflows that enable memory corruption. These methods align with guidelines from NIST, emphasizing systematic vulnerability assessments during the software development lifecycle. Auditors may briefly consider network dependencies, such as secure API communications, but focus primarily on software logic.

Physical and Operational Controls

Physical and operational controls in audits evaluate the safeguards protecting physical assets and the procedural frameworks governing daily activities to mitigate risks to information systems. These audits assess whether organizations have implemented measures to secure facilities, manage access, and ensure reliable operations, aligning with standards such as NIST SP 800-53's Physical and Environmental Protection (PE) family, which outlines controls for limiting physical access to authorized individuals and monitoring environmental threats. Auditors focus on verifying that these controls prevent unauthorized physical intrusions and operational disruptions, such as those from or malicious insiders, while ensuring compliance with frameworks like ISO/IEC 27001 Annex A.7 for physical controls. Audited elements include data centers, where physical protections against environmental hazards like fire, flooding, and power failures are scrutinized to safeguard servers and storage systems. Employee access to sensitive areas is examined to confirm that only vetted personnel can enter, reducing risks from unauthorized entry or . Incident response plans are reviewed to ensure they define clear procedures for detecting, containing, and recovering from security events, including coordination with external stakeholders. Operational risks, such as insider threats from employees with excessive privileges or policy non-adherence through bypassed procedures, are assessed to identify vulnerabilities that could lead to data breaches or system compromises. Key controls encompass badge systems and for enforcing and monitoring physical access, as required by NIST PE-3, which mandates locks, guards, or entry devices at controlled points, with enhancements for automated monitoring and access logs. procedures are audited to verify regular, tested data replication to offsite or secure media, ensuring recoverability in line with ISO/IEC 27001 A.8.13, which emphasizes protection against data loss from operational failures. Segregation of duties in operations, such as requiring dual approvals for system changes, prevents single points of failure or abuse, a practice highlighted in guidelines to minimize risks by dividing incompatible tasks like and execution. Audit specifics involve on-site visits to inspect perimeters, access points, and surveillance systems, confirming compliance with perimeters as per ISO/IEC 27001 A.7.1. Policy reviews entail examining documentation for incident response plans against NIST SP 800-61 guidelines, which recommend annual plan updates and inclusion of handling through HR and legal coordination. Simulations of incidents, such as exercises or full-scale drills, test operational readiness, validating roles, communication, and recovery timelines as outlined in the Institute of Internal Auditors' guidance on cyber incident response audits. In 2025, the IIA issued the Cybersecurity Topical Requirement, effective 2026, mandating internal audit functions to assess cybersecurity governance and risks, including incident response, when material to the organization. Common findings include inadequate training on access protocols, leading to non-adherence, or poor without segregation, resulting in unapproved modifications that expose systems to risks.

Types of Audits

Compliance and Regulatory Audits

Compliance and regulatory audits in are systematic evaluations conducted to verify an organization's adherence to legal, regulatory, and industry-specific standards, ensuring that protect sensitive data and mitigate risks associated with non-compliance. These audits typically involve mapping organizational evidence—such as policies, procedures, logs, and control implementations—to predefined regulatory requirements, often through independent third-party assessors who document findings in formal reports. Unlike internal reviews, these audits emphasize demonstrable proof of compliance to avoid legal repercussions, focusing on domains like financial reporting integrity, data protection, and privacy. Key types of compliance audits include those mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (), the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). SOX audits, required for public companies, focus on internal controls over financial reporting under Section 404, where management assesses control effectiveness and external auditors attest to that assessment, mapping evidence to controls like access restrictions and to prevent material misstatements. PCI-DSS audits apply to entities handling data, requiring annual assessments by Qualified Security Assessors (QSAs) that validate compliance across 12 requirements, such as and , through evidence like scan reports and results. GDPR audits, obligatory for organizations processing EU personal data, mandate security measures under Article 32, including periodic audits to demonstrate risk-appropriate protections like and access controls, with evidence mapped to principles of data minimization and integrity. Prominent frameworks guiding these audits include ISO 27001 certification audits and (CSF) assessments. ISO 27001 audits, conducted in two stages by accredited certification bodies, evaluate an organization's Information Security Management System (ISMS) against 93 controls in Annex A (as per the 2022 revision), requiring evidence of risk treatment plans, internal audits, and management reviews for initial certification valid for three years, followed by surveillance. assessments, while voluntary for most but regulatory for under 13636, involve profiling current and target cybersecurity practices across Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover functions, mapping controls to evidence like incident response plans to gauge compliance maturity. These audits often entail mandatory reporting, such as annual PCI-DSS Reports on Compliance (ROCs) submitted to payment brands, SOX Section 404 attestations in SEC filings, and GDPR data protection impact assessments shared with supervisory authorities upon request. Non-compliance penalties are severe: SOX violations can incur fines up to $5 million and imprisonment up to 20 years for executives; PCI-DSS breaches may result in fines of $5,000 to $100,000 per month plus acquirer liabilities; and GDPR infringements carry maximum fines of €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover, whichever is greater. In contrast to voluntary audits, which organizations pursue proactively for self-improvement or optional certifications without legal enforcement, compliance audits are externally imposed, with standardized scopes, timelines, and consequences tied directly to regulatory obligations.

Risk-Based and Internal Audits

Risk-based information security audits prioritize evaluation efforts on areas with the highest potential impact to the , using structured assessments to guide scope and . These audits differ from compliance-focused ones by emphasizing proactive identification of vulnerabilities tailored to the 's unique threat landscape, rather than solely adhering to external mandates. Internal audits, conducted by the 's own teams, form the core of this approach, providing independent assurance on while aligning with broader objectives. The methodology begins with comprehensive risk assessments that employ likelihood-by-impact matrices to categorize threats, enabling auditors to focus on high-priority assets and processes. For instance, under the NIST Risk Management Framework, risk prioritization occurs during system categorization and control selection phases, where potential impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability are weighed against threat probabilities. Internal audit cycles typically occur annually for routine reviews but can be ad-hoc in response to emerging risks, ensuring timely evaluations without exhaustive coverage of low-risk areas. This risk-driven planning enhances efficiency by directing efforts toward critical functions, such as those involving sensitive data flows. A key focus of these audits is business-specific threats, including vulnerabilities that could introduce or data breaches through third-party integrations. Auditors examine supplier security practices and contractual safeguards to mitigate such risks, as outlined in NIST guidelines for cybersecurity . Integration with (ERM) is essential, where information security risks are aggregated into organizational risk profiles using shared registers and key risk indicators, allowing for holistic decision-making across departments. This alignment ensures that security audits contribute to overall business resilience rather than operating in isolation. To achieve efficiency, auditors apply sampling methods that balance thoroughness with practicality, such as statistical sampling to quantify and minimize sampling while optimizing sample sizes based on assessed control reliability. Nonstatistical approaches may also be used for judgmental selections in high- areas, reducing the need for full population testing. Emerging trends emphasize continuous auditing through , leveraging tools for real-time monitoring of configurations and incident responses, which shortens audit cycles and enables proactive remediation. These automated techniques, supported by frameworks like the IIA's guidance, allow internal teams to detect anomalies swiftly and integrate findings directly into ERM processes.

Specialized Audits

Specialized audits in focus on targeted evaluations of specific technical or operational domains that require in-depth scrutiny beyond general compliance or assessments. These audits address niche areas where vulnerabilities can have outsized impacts, such as cryptographic implementations, access mechanisms, and user behaviors, often employing specialized tools and methodologies to uncover subtle weaknesses. Encryption audits examine the implementation and management of cryptographic systems to ensure they meet established standards and protect sensitive effectively. These audits typically assess , distribution, storage, rotation, and destruction processes, verifying compliance with federal standards like , which specifies requirements for cryptographic modules used in protecting sensitive information. Auditors evaluate whether modules achieve appropriate levels—ranging from basic operational environment protections at Level 1 to physical tamper resistance at Level 4—and confirm that key management practices align with NIST SP 800-57 guidelines, including secure key lifecycle management to prevent unauthorized access or compromise. For instance, audits may involve testing for proper in and ensuring hardware security modules (HSMs) are configured to isolate keys from software vulnerabilities. Logical security audits concentrate on the integrity of systems and mechanisms that govern user privileges within systems. These audits policies and configurations for (RBAC), ensuring that users receive only the minimum privileges necessary for their roles, as outlined in NIST SP 800-53's (AC) family of controls. A key focus is identifying risks of , where attackers exploit misconfigurations or flaws to gain elevated permissions, such as through improper least privilege enforcement (AC-6) or account management weaknesses (AC-2). Auditors perform code s and configuration analyses to detect issues like over-permissive API endpoints or unmonitored service accounts, using techniques such as static analysis tools to simulate escalation paths and recommend segmentation to limit lateral movement. Behavioral audits analyze patterns of user and system activity to detect deviations that may indicate insider threats or advanced persistent threats. These audits leverage (UBA) integrated with (SIEM) systems to monitor logs for anomalies, such as unusual login times, data exfiltration attempts, or privilege abuse, establishing baselines of normal behavior through models. SIEM tools aggregate data from endpoints, networks, and applications to enable real-time correlation and alerting, supporting compliance with logging requirements in standards like NIST SP 800-92 for audit log management. For example, auditors might review SIEM dashboards for outlier detection in file access patterns, ensuring timely response to potential compromises while respecting privacy considerations in monitoring. Emerging specialized audits address the unique challenges of modern environments, including (IoT) and deployments. IoT security audits evaluate device ecosystems for vulnerabilities like weak or insecure , following NIST SP 800-213 guidelines that recommend inventory management, secure boot processes, and continuous monitoring to mitigate risks in interconnected systems. In contexts, audits often center on configuration reviews using services like AWS Config, which tracks resource changes and assesses compliance against security best practices, such as enabling encryption at rest and enforcing least privilege IAM policies to prevent misconfigurations that expose data. These audits highlight the need for hybrid approaches, combining automated scanning with manual verification to adapt to dynamic, distributed architectures.

Tools and Methodologies

Common Tools and Techniques

audits rely on a combination of automated tools and manual techniques to assess vulnerabilities, compliance, and operational controls systematically. Automated tools enable efficient scanning and analysis of large-scale environments, while manual techniques provide qualitative insights into processes and human factors. These methods are integrated during the execution phase to gather evidence, identify risks, and validate postures. Vulnerability scanners are foundational automated tools used to detect weaknesses in networks, systems, and applications by simulating attacks and identifying known vulnerabilities. Nessus, developed by , is a scanner renowned for its comprehensive plugin library exceeding 180,000 checks, enabling detailed assessments of IT assets for compliance with standards like PCI DSS. It supports both authenticated and unauthenticated scans, making it suitable for broad network audits. In contrast, is an open-source alternative that offers similar capabilities, including over 50,000 vulnerability tests through the Greenbone Community Feed, and is favored for its cost-effectiveness and customizability in resource-constrained environments. These scanners are typically deployed early in audits to map assets and prioritize risks, but they often produce false positives, requiring manual verification to avoid resource waste. Log analyzers facilitate the review of system and security event logs to uncover anomalies, unauthorized access, and compliance violations. is a widely adopted platform that ingests and correlates logs in real-time, using search processing language to generate audit trails and detect patterns like failed authentications. It supports (SIEM) functions, allowing auditors to query vast datasets for evidence of incidents. Integration with vulnerability scanners enhances audit efficiency by automating log correlation with scan results, though high volumes of data can lead to analysis overload without proper filtering. Compliance checkers automate the evaluation of policies and configurations against regulatory requirements. Qualys Policy Audit is a cloud-based tool that maps controls to frameworks such as NIST and PCI DSS, performing continuous scans to generate remediation reports and proof of compliance. It reduces manual effort by automating evidence collection, such as configuration assessments, and is integrated into broader workflows. Limitations include dependency on accurate asset inventories, as incomplete data can skew results. Manual techniques complement by engaging stakeholders directly. Interviews with IT personnel and reveal implementation details and control effectiveness, often structured around scenarios to elicit qualitative data. Questionnaires, distributed to process owners, standardize responses on control adherence and gather self-reported evidence efficiently. Control self-assessments (CSAs) empower departments to evaluate their own risks and controls using predefined matrices, fostering ownership while auditors validate outputs through sampling. These methods are essential for auditing human-centric elements like access management but can introduce bias if not cross-verified with tool-generated data. (Note: NIST SP 800-26 is the official source; the provided link is to a mirrored PDF for .) In audit execution, tools like Nessus and are often sequenced with manual techniques—for instance, initial automated network scans followed by interviews to contextualize findings—ensuring a holistic assessment across domains like infrastructure security. Emerging trends emphasize AI-enhanced tools to address challenges in 2025 audits. AI integrations in platforms like and enable predictive and automated prioritization of high-risk vulnerabilities, reducing false positives through models. Open-source tools such as offer flexibility and community-driven updates at no licensing cost, appealing to smaller organizations, whereas proprietary options like Nessus provide vendor support and advanced features, justifying higher expenses for enterprises needing assured compliance reporting. The choice between open-source and proprietary depends on budget, expertise, and audit scope, with hybrid approaches gaining traction for balanced coverage.

Standards and Frameworks

Information security audits are guided by established international standards that provide structured requirements for managing and assessing security controls. The ISO/IEC 27001 standard, in its 2022 edition, specifies requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), enabling organizations to manage risks systematically during audits. This standard facilitates audit alignment by mapping organizational controls to its Annex A, which outlines 93 controls across 4 themes. Organizations must transition to this version by October 31, 2025, to maintain certification, with the revision emphasizing integration of emerging risks like supply chain vulnerabilities. The NIST Special Publication 800-53, Revision 5 (updated to Release 5.2.0 in August 2025), serves as a comprehensive catalog of and controls for federal information systems and organizations, organized into 20 control families to support risk-based auditing. Auditors use this framework to map controls to specific requirements, such as access management and incident response, ensuring alignment with organizational risk postures. Recent enhancements in 2025 include overlays for securing AI systems through the Control Overlays for Securing AI Systems (COSAiS) project, which adapts controls for AI-specific risks, and strengthened provisions to address third-party dependencies. COBIT, developed by ISACA in its 2019 edition, provides a framework for IT governance and management, focusing on aligning IT processes with business objectives through 40 governance and management objectives. In audits, supports control mapping by evaluating enablers like processes and organizational structures against security requirements, promoting effective and compliance. A 2025 ISACA extends 's application to AI governance, incorporating objectives for ethical AI deployment and oversight in IT audits. Professional frameworks further structure information security audits. ISACA's IT Audit Framework (ITAF), in its 4th edition, outlines standards and best practices for IT audits, including guidelines for assessing controls in alignment with objectives. ISACA updated specific audit programs in 2025, such as those for VPN security and , to incorporate emerging digital trust considerations like AI-driven threats. The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Global Internal Audit Standards, effective January 9, 2025, establish mandatory principles and implementation guidance for practices, emphasizing risk-based approaches to security evaluations. These standards require auditors to demonstrate proficiency in addressing evolving threats, including AI and risks, through updated implementation guides. These standards and frameworks are often applied in compliance audits to verify adherence to regulatory requirements.

References

  1. https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/security_audit
  2. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53Ar5
  3. https://www.iso.org/standard/27001
  4. https://www.isaca.org/credentialing/cisa
  5. https://www.iso.org/standard/64697.html
  6. https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-5/information-systems-security-audit-an-ontological-framework
  7. https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2022/volume-1/the-evolution-of-information-systems-audit
  8. https://auditboard.com/blog/what-is-security-audit
  9. https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/cybersecurity/types-of-security-audits/
  10. https://publications.aaahq.org/jis/article/36/1/181/992/Information-Security-Assurance-and-the-Role-of
  11. https://www.compact.nl/articles/fifty-years-of-it-auditing/
  12. https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach
  13. https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/industry-news/2024/six-benefits-of-a-cybersecurity-audit
  14. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/laws-regulations/index.html
  15. https://www.schellman.com/blog/healthcare-compliance/benefits-of-hipaa-assessments-for-healthcare-organizations
  16. https://www.vanta.com/collection/hipaa/benefits-of-hipaa-compliance
  17. https://www.sailpoint.com/identity-library/benefits-of-a-cybersecurity-audit
  18. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-2
  19. https://atlantsecurity.com/blog/internal-vs-external-it-security-audits/
  20. https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/documents/content/articles/guidance/practice-guides/independence-and-objectivity/111032-prof-independenceobjectivity-pg-fnl.pdf
  21. https://qualysec.com/top-8-cybersecurity-audit-companies/
  22. https://www.johansonllp.com/blog/information-security-audits
  23. https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2019/volume-2/the-role-of-the-ciso-and-the-digital-security-landscape
  24. https://atlantsecurity.com/blog/unveiling-the-layers-of-a-security-audit/
  25. https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/documents/content/articles/guidance/implementation-guidance/1100--independence-and-objectivity/iia-ig---standard-1100--independence-and-objectivity.pdf
  26. https://www.infosecinstitute.com/resources/cisa/maintaining-cisa-certification-renewal-requirements/
  27. https://www.isaca.org/credentialing/cisa/get-cisa-certified
  28. https://www.isaca.org/credentialing/cisa/maintain-cisa-certification
  29. https://www.isaca.org/credentialing/cism
  30. https://www.isaca.org/credentialing/cism/cism-exam-content-outline
  31. https://www.isaca.org/credentialing/cism/get-cism-certified
  32. https://www.infosecinstitute.com/resources/cism/maintaining-cism-certification-renewal-requirements/
  33. https://www.eccouncil.org/train-certify/certified-ethical-hacker-ceh/
  34. https://www.cool.osd.mil/dciv/credential/index.html?cert=ceh4310
  35. https://www.knowledgehut.com/blog/security/certified-ethical-hacker-renewal
  36. https://www.infosecinstitute.com/resources/management-compliance-auditing/how-to-become-information-systems-security-auditor/
  37. https://www.cyberdegrees.org/careers/security-auditor/certifications/
  38. https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/information-security-auditor/how-to-become/
  39. https://www.isaca.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/2025/quantum-computings-rapid-rise-is-a-risk-to-cybersecurity-and-business-stability
  40. https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/isaca-now-blog/2025/why-aaism-is-the-next-step-for-cisms
  41. https://www.eccouncil.org/train-certify/certified-ethical-hacker-ceh-v13-north-america/
  42. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-115.pdf
  43. https://www.vita.virginia.gov/media/vitavirginiagov/commonwealth-security/pdf/ITSecurity_Audit_Guideline_512_00_jan09.pdf
  44. https://www.famu.edu/administration/audit/pdf/standards/ITAF-4th-Edition.pdf
  45. https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/Penetration-Testing-Guidance-v1_1.pdf
  46. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-137.pdf
  47. https://www.isaca.org/resources/it-audit
  48. https://secureframe.com/blog/iso-27001-audit
  49. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/nistspecialpublication800-115.pdf
  50. https://www.isaca.org/bookstore/audit-control-and-security-essentials/witaf4
  51. https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2019/volume-2/how-root-cause-analysis-fits-into-various-audit-types
  52. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.21323
  53. https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2025/05/28/cisos-ai-governance-strategy/
  54. https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/documents/content/articles/guidance/practice-guides/audit-reports-communicating-assurance-engagement-results/pg-audit-reports.pdf
  55. https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2016/volume-6/enhancing-the-audit-follow-up-process-using-cobit-5
  56. https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/isaca-now-blog/2025/follow-up-audits-and-follow-up-process-the-auditors-impact-litmus-tool
  57. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CISAInsights-Cyber-RemediateVulnerabilitiesforInternetAccessibleSystems_S508C.pdf
  58. https://www.isaca.org/resources/cobit
  59. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/nistspecialpublication800-41r1.pdf
  60. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/nistspecialpublication800-94.pdf
  61. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r5.pdf
  62. https://owasp.org/www-project-application-security-verification-standard/
  63. https://owasp.org/www-project-secure-coding-practices-quick-reference-guide/
  64. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/115/final
  65. https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/v42/4-Web_Application_Security_Testing/07-Input_Validation_Testing/05-Testing_for_SQL_Injection
  66. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53r5
  67. https://www.dataguard.com/iso-27001/annex-a/7-physical-controls/
  68. https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2018/volume-1/is-audit-basics-backup-and-recovery
  69. https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2022/volume-5/a-step-by-step-sod-implementation-guide
  70. https://www.theiia.org/en/content/guidance/recommended/supplemental/gtags/gtag-auditing-cyber-incident-response-and-recovery/
  71. https://www.theiia.org/en/standards/2024-standards/topical-requirements/cybersecurity/
  72. https://hightable.io/iso-27001-annex-a-7-1-physical-security-perimeters/
  73. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2003/03/disclosure-required-sections-406-407-sarbanes-oxley-act-2002
  74. https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/PCI_DSS-QRG-v3_2_1.pdf
  75. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107500
  76. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3763
  77. https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/document_library/
  78. https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/pci_pa-dss_security_audit_procedures_v1-1.pdf
  79. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sme-data-protection-guide/secure-personal-data_en
  80. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/consultation/edpb_guidelines_202007_controllerprocessor_en.pdf
  81. https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework
  82. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.29.pdf
  83. https://www.isms.online/pci-dss/failure-to-comply-fines/
  84. https://www.upguard.com/blog/difference-between-compliance-and-auditing-in-information-security
  85. https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/documents/content/articles/guidance/gtag/gtag-assessing-cybersecurity-risk.pdf
  86. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/risk-management
  87. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-161r1.pdf
  88. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8286.pdf
  89. https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS2315
  90. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/r5/upd1/final
  91. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/57/pt1/r5/final
  92. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/siem
  93. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/config/latest/developerguide/security.html
  94. https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/cybersecurity/information-security-audit-tools/
  95. https://www.tenable.com/nessus/competitive-comparison
  96. https://www.openvas.org/
  97. https://www.balbix.com/insights/what-to-know-about-vulnerability-scanning-and-tools/
  98. https://www.splunk.com/en_us/blog/learn/audit-logs.html
  99. https://www.splunk.com/en_us/blog/learn/log-analysis.html
  100. https://www.qualys.com/apps/policy-audit/
  101. https://www.qualys.com/solutions/compliance/
  102. https://auditboard.com/blog/risk-self-control-assessment
  103. https://worklenz.com/compare/open-source-vs-proprietary-tools-for-cybersecurity-projects/
  104. https://www.instaclustr.com/blog/open-source-vs-proprietary-code-security/
  105. https://www.isms.online/iso-27001/
  106. https://www.lrqa.com/en-us/insights/articles/preparing-for-iso-270012022-transition-by-october-2025/
  107. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cosais
  108. https://industrialcyber.co/nist/nist-enhances-sp-800-53-controls-to-improve-cybersecurity-and-software-maintenance-reduce-cyber-risks/
  109. https://www.isaca.org/resources/white-papers/2025/leveraging-cobit-for-effective-ai-system-governance
  110. https://www.isaca.org/resources/frameworks-standards-and-models
  111. https://www.isaca.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/2025/isaca-updates-vpn-and-biometrics-audit-programs-for-enhanced-digital-trust
  112. https://www.theiia.org/en/standards/
  113. https://www.theiia.org/en/standards/2024-standards/future-of-the-ippf-evolution/
  114. https://www.bsigroup.com/en-US/products-and-services/standards/iso-iec-27001-information-security-management-system/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.