APRA CPS 234vsIACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems
See exactly how APRA CPS 234 controls map to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
APRA CPS 234 maps to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems with 20% coverage across 10 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 APRA CPS 234 controls identifies 35 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in APRA CPS 234: Third-Party Risk Management.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 723 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 16 of 16 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 723 frameworks.
APRA CPS 234: Cybersecurity Controls(3 mappings)
APRA CPS 234: Operational Resilience(1 mappings)
Controls(2 mappings)
APRA CPS 234: Incident Management & Reporting(6 mappings)
Assurance(2 mappings)
Audit(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other APRA CPS 234 comparisons
Other IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 723 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 723 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between APRA CPS 234 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
APRA CPS 234 has 35 controls across its framework, while IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems covers 19 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 10 overlapping controls (20% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in APRA CPS 234: Third-Party Risk Management, where 5 APRA CPS 234 controls have no direct IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems equivalent.
How many controls map between APRA CPS 234 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
Of 35 total APRA CPS 234 controls, 10 map directly to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls — representing 20% coverage. The remaining 35 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping APRA CPS 234 to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
35 APRA CPS 234 controls have no direct equivalent in IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems. The highest concentration of gaps is in APRA CPS 234: Third-Party Risk Management with 5 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between APRA CPS 234 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
The domain with the highest gap count is APRA CPS 234: Third-Party Risk Management (5 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.