When I was involved in a audit he wanted proof of missing invoice numbers. 15 
years ago. I kinda laughed we didn't have the proof at that time, and from then 
forward we kept the printed 'voided' invoice (for invoices that printed 
incorrectly) in the numerical paper file. But as a programmer I know it would 
take me nothing at all to simply duplicate a voided invoice. And even in times 
when the printer jammed... we had no choice but to fake the missing invoice 
numbers.  Really seemed pointless to me. He wouldn't take the printed sales 
journal with the missing numbers on it for proof, he wanted a paper invoice 
with the number on it and void written on it.  This was a system where we did 
the data entry for the invoice, (batch) printed the invoices, CHECKED them 
manually, voided any that were wrong and THEN ran the update. Ah.. the good ole 
days.

~Marilyn
 -----Original Message-----
From:   Clifton Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent:   Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:49 AM
To:     [email protected]
Subject:        Re: [U2] Best practice for Sequential IDs using TRANSACTION     
START & COMMIT/RO...

I just can't keep quiet any more.

Any auditor who depends on a non-information content, sequentially 
assigned, record counters as an audit trail ought to be flogged and 
sent back to Auditing For Dummies. If your auditor demands that, I'd 
suspect they are a paper-based bean counter, not an Information Systems 
Auditor.


-- 

Regards,

Clif

Member ISACA
www.isaca.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W. Clifton Oliver, CCP
CLIFTON OLIVER & ASSOCIATES
Tel: +1 619 460 5678    Web: www.oliver.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


On Jun 15, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Stevenson, Charles wrote:

> Missing sequential numbers isn't important to me, but it's a good point
> for general discussion.
>
> cds
>
> From: Bruce Nichol
>> This is all well and good if the "commit" goes ahead, but if
>> "rollback" is the action, don't you lose a supposedly
>> sequential "root key" into the vapours?
>>
>> Never to be seen again?
>>
>> That'd make an auditor go spare..... "61,62,63,65,66... Hang
>> on!  Where's
>> 64? .... Stop the presses!   Everybody down and look for 64..."
-------
u2-users mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
-------
u2-users mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/

Reply via email to