Equifax IT Breach

SOLVED BY  Expert Writers

I recently interviewed a Big 4 partner who made the comment that some people view an IT breach as evidence of a weakness in internal controls. The question arises then as to whether that implies a weakness in internal controls over financial reporting. Some people take the perspective that the auditor is only responsible for ICFR that affects the general ledger. This gets a bit muddy when customer records, which may be part of the revenue system are involved. Another argument is that these are related to operations, not ICFR (internal controls over financial reporting).
Discuss briefly what happened at equifax and if the events had any financial statement or ICFR ramifications. Outside of the financial statements, was there a material impact on market values? You may with to review the company’s SEC filings to better think through the financial statement effects. (Relevant documents to answer this question are the GAO report).
So from the perspective of an investor of Equifax with an understanding of the rules of what the auditor’s responsibilities are, what is your view about the role financial statement auditors should play with respect to security breaches? Does providing IT related non-audit services (as EY did in the case of Equifax) change the investor’s perception of the responsibilities of the financial statement auditor? Would your perspective be different if you were a Big 4 audit partner? Justify your answers based on what the audit standards say.
Sample Solution

Some may contend that opposition right now provisional – however the action word and the descriptor are, to a degree, fundamentally unrelated. Lisa Hopkins stays resolute that in spite of flashes of solidarity, generally, ‘Elizabeth feels less allowed to submit herself. For sure, I will propose that Elizabeth was, actually, apprehensive of composing on the grounds that during a time of equivocalness and pleasantry, it offered such a large number of prisoners to fortune’. I consent to a degree with Hopkins – Elizabeth was apprehensive, at the same time, on the off chance that anything, witticisms and ambiguities considered the Queen’s best unpretentious corresponds. Hopkins does later acknowledge this perspective be that as it may; ‘ambiguities and intriguingness were qualities instead of debilitations’. This matches my line of contention: Elizabeth utilized dubious scholarly gadgets – ambiguities, pleasantry, language structure – to show opposition when she was at her generally confined. In later witticisms, the Queen straightforwardly addresses sexual orientation develops to show her obstruction. In ‘Insubordination of Fortune’ (1589) for instance, there exists that the Queen was gotten between the certainty of fortune and imperatives of her sex: ‘Never figure you fortune can tolerate the influence/Where goodness’ power can make her comply’. For sure, the sonnet requests that fortune not be so inflexible in the influence of its wheel, ‘bear the influence’, as the weight of ‘prudence’s power’ (her feminized desires), can be predominant. Curiously, the hesitance saw in Elizabeth’s before, most defenseless saying has as a rule vanished. Elizabeth is spoken to as effectively announcing that she will not be aloof and leave her destiny to risk. This is made conceivable by the adjustment in power relationship to her crowd. By this point, Elizabeth’s capacity as England’s ruler takes into consideration a progressively dynamic refrain, despite the fact that oneself expostulating tone which asserts her sex may in any case restrain her capacity remains. I accept anyway that permission of her ‘powerless’ sex is itself an indication of obstruction. She is by and by not permitting potential adversaries to search out issues when she herself has arranged them. In different sonnets tending to a worldwide crowd, Elizabe>