CISA - Certified Information Systems Auditor

 The most important reason to classify a disaster recovery plan (DRP) as confidential is to reduce the risk of data leakage that could lead to an attack. A DRP contains sensitive information about the organization’s IT infrastructure, systems, processes, and procedures for recovering from a disaster. If this information falls into the wrong hands, it could be exploited by malicious actors to launch targeted attacks, sabotage recovery efforts, or extort ransom. Therefore, a DRP should be protected from unauthorized access, disclosure, modification, or destruction.

The other options are not as important as reducing the risk of data leakage that could lead to an attack:

Ensuring compliance with the data classification policy is a good practice, but it is not a sufficient reason to classify a DRP as confidential. The data classification policy should reflect the level of risk and impact associated with each type of data, and a DRP should be classified as confidential based on its potential harm if compromised.

Protecting the plan from unauthorized alteration is a valid concern, but it is not a primary reason to classify a DRP as confidential. A DRP should be protected from unauthorized alteration by implementing access controls, audit trails, version control, and change management processes. Classifying a DRP as confidential may deter some unauthorized alterations, but it does not prevent them.

Complying with business continuity best practice is a desirable goal, but it is not a compelling reason to classify a DRP as confidential. Business continuity best practice may recommend classifying a DRP as confidential, but it does not mandate it. The decision to classify a DRP as confidential should be based on a risk assessment and a cost-benefit analysis.

The most important determining factor when establishing appropriate timeframes for follow-up activities related to audit findings is the remediation dates included in management responses. The IS auditor should ensure that the follow-up activities are aligned with the agreed-upon action plans and deadlines that management has committed to in response to the audit findings. The follow-up activities should verify that management has implemented the corrective actions effectively and in a timely manner, and that the audit findings have been resolved or mitigated.

The other options are less important factors for establishing timeframes for follow-up activities:

Availability of IS audit resources. This is a practical factor that may affect the scheduling and execution of follow-up activities, but it should not override the priority and urgency of verifying management’s corrective actions.

Peak activity periods for the business. This is a factor that may affect the availability and cooperation of auditees during follow-up activities, but it should not delay or postpone the verification of management’s corrective actions beyond reasonable limits.

Complexity of business processes identified in the audit. This is a factor that may affect the scope and depth of follow-up activities, but it should not affect the timeframe for verifying management’s corrective actions.