Talk:Information technology audit

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tl2495.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Any Reason For Inclusion of Proprietary Methodologies Not Directly Related to Audit
While I'm sure many of know about and might even be fans of the OBASHI method, there are dozens of others out there too and audit is a minor part.

Anyone object to removing from "Miscellaneous"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.125.82 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

IT audit or IS audit?
Is it Information Technology Audit or Information Systems Audit? The latter seems more prominent.


 * Yep, definitely. For the moment I have set up a redirection between those two, but a complete migration from the former to the latter is I think advisable. grafikm_fr 19:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, never. Information Technology unfortunately is a coined term applicable to mainly the corporate PC sector. Information Systems however deals with much broader topics related to any sector. 15:22, 09 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I work in the mainframe arena, and I see the term "IT" much more than "IS". --Auntof6 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

COBIT??
Why is COBIT listed along with a set of laws? COBIT is certainly not a law or a regulation of any kind. See http://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=COBIT6&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=55&ContentID=7981 for more information on COBIT. I think it should be deleted from that section. Bpuli 15:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

IT audit / software audit review
Could s.o. please check how the two articles are related and add a sentence or a link in an appropriate place. I looked at both articles and now am not sure what to call the stuff I need to write about for our company. Lisa4edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.23.111 (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

merge
the article nformation technology audit process is a over-detailed expansion, with a decidedly how to do it nature. I suggest it be merged in here, in abbreciated format.  DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading title
It appears that the article takes a very particular view on how a generic task (IT audit) ought to be or is accomplished. For example, there is no mention of ISO-based quality assurance (QA) auditing (which applies to IT as much as any other process), or the ITIL methodology, which appears to be prominent enough to warrant some consideration.

On reading the article a second and third time, I gained the impression that a particular set of qualifications and their underlying training requirements were being promoted to the exclusion of others.

Perhaps the article needs to be re-named to reflect a particular school of IT auditing, or a particular set of statutory or legislative requirements for the particular scope, qualifications and competencies mentioned. Alternatively, the entire article might be an appropriate chapter or sub-section of a wider treatment of IT audits mentioning all, or as many as possible, methodologies and certifications/skill-sets/requirements.

Regards

Peter S Strempel 04:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Information technology audit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610150803/http://www.auditware.co.uk/content/76/The-need-for-CAATs to http://www.auditware.co.uk/content/76/The-need-for-CAATs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)