What is the relationship between Sarbanes Oxley's Act and Software Testing?
366630
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or SOX, is an attempt to implement accounting oversight and protect against Enron-type scandals.  It appears that many small companies affected by this law are finding it very expensive to comply.  This may make it difficult for any such company to carry on business, whether it be software testing or anything else.
198978
computer software must meet some minimum set of requirements. one is speed. others, reliability, compatibility with most systems, low volume of mbytes(low number of lines of code). if a software is not meeting a requirement in one of the above, then it is said the application has some weaknesses about the known situation. a report should include the above 4 issues. in order to do this, the application must be tested in as many different systems as possible. it is usually a teamwork. othervise an alone man could not finish initialisation within months perhaps.
948411
The stage of testing that is being performed on the software.\n\nAlpha testing is generally done "in house" by the company that is intending to release the software, by the software company employees or contractors.\n\nBeta testing is after Alpha testing and is a phase generally moved into when a company wants to see how real users will interact with the software.  It's helpful for the company to see the things it didn't catch in initial (or Alpha) testing.  Generally Beta testing leads to either Release...meaning they fix most of the bugs in Beta and they go ahead and roll out or sell the software...or the third stage of testing, called Release Candidate.\n\nRelease Candidate is sent out, often to people who actually pay for the software because they have a large business need which the software will help fix.  Even though the company buying the software is aware they're going to be helping the producing company test their software, it's still a good relationship to enter if the cost of NOT having the software outweighs the cost of dealing with pre-release "fully" tested software.\n\nRelease Candidates can also go through versions, like RC1 and RC2...coincidentally, Windows Vista is on RC2 now (I think) and that - at least in Microsoft speak - means they think they're almost ready to roll this software out to the general public.
932283
I don't know the full scope of Sarbanes-Oxley and what it is accomplishing in the grand sceme of things.  I will tell you that it is creating TONS of extra work for organizations and implementing it is really bogging down companies...making them drown in implementing process and controls.  What this is attempting to do isn't a bad thing...it's just really impacting the productivity of American companies in a negative way.
449549
its a program under test, meaning its done yet feed back is needed for the development of that program :)
856883
Probably one of the major challenges is once the s/w is in operation, invariably there will be changes made to it. This will give rise to new test cases that would not have been accounted for previously. Developing new test cases or redefining some of them will be difficult.\nAlso, it is important to determine how much is enough. It is not possible to test  all possible test cases due to time and budgetary constraints. So one cannot maximise testing but only optimise.
128302
The Act came in the wake of a series of corporate financial scandals, including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, and WorldCom (now MCI). Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D–Md.) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R–Oh.), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0.
299839
Look up the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act" online.  It was the law that congress passed to try and stop things like "Enron" from happening again.  It isn't perfect,(government work never is) but it will give you an idea of what type of controls you should have in place to prevent fraud.....
36823
Wow!  You are an accountant?  Do you practice in a cave?\n\nSOX 404 = Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 404\nSection 404: Management Assessment Of Internal Controls.\n\nRequires each annual report of an issuer to contain an "internal control report", which shall:\n\n(1) state the responsibility of management for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting; and\n\n(2) contain an assessment, as of the end of the issuer's fiscal year, of the effectiveness of the internal control structure and procedures of the issuer for financial reporting.\n\nEach issuer's auditor shall attest to, and report on, the assessment made by the management of the issuer. An attestation made under this section shall be in accordance with standards for attestation engagements issued or adopted by the Board. An attestation engagement shall not be the subject of a separate engagement.\n\nThe language in the report of the Committee which accompanies the bill to explain the legislative intent states, "--- the Committee does not intend that the auditor's evaluation be the subject of a separate engagement or the basis for increased charges or fees."\n\nDirects the SEC to require each issuer to disclose whether it has adopted a code of ethics for its senior financial officers and the contents of that code.\n\nDirects the SEC to revise its regulations concerning prompt disclosure on Form 8-K to require immediate disclosure "of any change in, or waiver of," an issuer's code of ethics.
260837
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION \n17 CFR PARTS 228 and 229 \n\n[RELEASE NOS. 33-8177A; 34-47235A; File No. S7-40-02] \n\nRIN 3235-AI66 \n\nDISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 406 AND 407 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002; CORRECTION \n\nAGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. \n\nACTION: Corrections to final regulations. \n\nSUMMARY: We are making technical corrections to rules adopted in Release No. 33-8177 (January 23, 2003), which were published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2003 (68 FR 5110). The rules implement Sections 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by requiring disclosures regarding audit committee financial experts and codes of ethics. This document amends an instruction to the rule to clarify that disclosures regarding audit committee financial experts are required only in annual reports. \n\nEFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 2003 \n\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Be, Special Counsel, Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 942-2910, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0312. \n\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: \n\nI. Background\nOn January 23, 2003, the Commission adopted,1 among other things, amendments to Item 401 of Regulations S-K and S-B.2 These rules require disclosure of whether a company has an audit committee financial expert, as defined in the rule, serving on its audit committee. \n\nSubsequent to the adoption of the amendments, questions arose regarding whether the disclosures required by the new disclosure item must be provided in registration statements under the Securities Act of 19333 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.4 Although the discussion of these provisions in the adopting release makes clear that such disclosure is required only in a company's annual report, the new disclosure item did not clearly state that such disclosure is required only in annual reports. \n\nAccordingly, the amendments set forth in this document clarify that the rules require disclosure of whether a company has an audit committee financial expert serving on its audit committee only in an annual report. Although this disclosure is not required in any document other than the annual report, a company may, at its discretion, include the audit committee financial expert disclosure in its proxy or information statement and incorporate that disclosure into its annual report if it complies with applicable rules for incorporation by reference. The changes are technical corrections to clarify the rules as described in the original adopting release, and do not alter the forms in which the disclosure is required as described in the original adopting release. \n\nII. Need for Correction\nAs published, the final regulations contain errors which are in need of clarification. \n\nIII. Correction of Publication\nAccordingly, the publication on January 31, 2003 of the final rules (Release No. 33-8177) relating to the disclosure of whether a company has an audit committee financial expert serving on its audit committee and whether a company has adopted a code of ethics for its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and controller, which were the subject of FR Doc. 03-2018, is corrected as follows: \n\n§ 228.401 [Corrected] \n\nOn page 5126, in the first column, paragraph 1 to Instructions to Item 401(e) of §228.401 is corrected to read as follows: \n\n* * * * * \n\nInstructions to Item 401(e) \n\n1. The disclosure under Item 401(e) is required only in a small business issuer's annual report. The small business issuer need not provide the disclosure required by this Item 401(e) in a proxy or information statement unless that small business issuer is electing to incorporate this information by reference from the proxy or information statement into its annual report pursuant to general instruction E(3) to Form 10-KSB. \n\n* * * * * \n\n§ 229.401 [Corrected] \n\nOn page 5127, in the third co
1137001
There is a point of law which states that "you knew or should have known".  For instance, as a CFO, you have the legal obligation to know if a financial statement is fraudulent, even if you didn't prepare it.  Under the SOX act of 2002, you can be jailed for signing a financial statement if is is false, even if you didn't know it was false.  This puts the burden on the CFO to  actually do his or her job.\n\nThe same goes for HR executives.  If someone is being harassed, they are responsible for taking action.  If they don't, they can be personally sanctioned.
329830
In software development, testing is usually required before release to the general public. This phase of development is known as the alpha phase. Testing during this phase is known as alpha testing.\n\nIn the first phase of alpha testing, developers test the software using white box techniques. Additional inspection is then performed using black box or grey box techniques. This is usually done by a dedicated testing team. This is often known as the second stage of alpha testing.\n\nOnce the alpha phase is complete, development enters the beta phase. Versions of the software, known as beta-versions, are released to a limited audience outside of the company. The software is released to groups of people so that further testing can ensure the product has few faults or bugs. Sometimes, beta-versions are made available to the open public to increase the feedback field to a maximal number of future users.\n\nTesting during the beta phase, informally called 'beta testing, is generally constrained to black box techniques although a core of test engineers are likely to continue with white box testing in parallel to the beta tests. Thus the term beta test can refer to the stage of the software—closer to release than being "in alpha"—or it can refer to the particular group and process being done at that stage. So a tester might be continuing to work in white box testing while the software is "in beta" (a stage) but he or she would then not be part of "the beta test" (group/activity).\n\nIn a corporate environment, an Alpha test is not implemented in the workplace, but done in labs and simulated settings.  A Beta test is implemented in a live environment, but the applications that the software would replace are run as well so that in case the software being tested fails the operation can continue.
60707
1) Don't do anything that gets you into legal trouble.  Don't copy protected media or intellectual property.  Abide by privacy laws.  Encrypt all outgoing sensitive information.  Tithe.  Keep a calm and professional attitude.  Demand a fair price for you services.\n\n2) Do exactly what your employer/client wants/needs you to do when they need you to do it.\n\nWhen you figure out what to do when 1) conflicts with 2), you'll be ready to manage information systems.\n\nActually (joking aside), COBIT is a good starting point for information about IT guideance.  If you are involved in a public corporation (with publicly traded stock), you need to know about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  See the links below
347018
Goto\n\nhttp://certification.about.com/cs/sampletests/a/mcse70290.htm
212820
Because making a change usually undermines all the work that followed it.\n\nIf your requirement was wrong, then your design of how to provide the requirement is either wrong - or worse, completely has to be thrown out.  Yet you still did the work - so you still had the cost of what you did, not what they now they they want.\n\nChanging the design means the code has to be change.  Also, the design documentation and the user documentation has to be changed.\n\nChanging the code means all the testing has to be repeated.  In addition, since the requirements changed - that will impact some of the tests which now have to be changed or replaced, and retested/verfied themselves.\n\nAlso, analysts, project mangers, team leads; they will have done work along the way that will now have to be somewhat repeated. The change will also push the schedule back.  Since everyone is on the payroll, that could really push the costs up.  You can't let all the testers go - and then hire them back again, you have to hold onto them all.  Same goes true for the tech writer(s), management, etc.\n\nPlus, accountants in any organizations involved might have to go over the change - and the charge for it - and decide if that change is reasonable.  Ironically, they have to be paid too.\n\nIt sounds crazy, and it really can be.\n\nWhat language is used, how experienced the staff is, how durably the software was written, how agile the workers and team as a whole are - all of these can impact the costs.\n\nBut the bottom line is, there will be some costs and they will arise from a lot of different people's work that have different roles on the project.
970322
If Software is being acquired by or behalf of the U.S. GOVERNMENT , if not ignore it since your not in gov. or part of supply chain.
133630
In software testing, a test harness is a collection of software tools and test data configured to test a program unit by running it under varying conditions and monitor its behavior and outputs.