TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)vsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0

See exactly how APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) controls map to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

14
Controls Mapped
26
Gaps Found
12%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) maps to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 with 12% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 40 APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) controls identifies 35 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Third-Party Management and Testing.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 40 controls analysed | 769 frameworks | 815K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 14 of 14 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 815K+ mappings across 769 frameworks.

Board and Governance Responsibilities(1 mappings)

CPS234.15Roles and Responsibilities
→CPG-6.BSupply Chain Incident Reporting

Incident Management and Notification(13 mappings)

CPS234.24Incident Response Mechanisms4 targets
→BMA-12Incident Response Plan
→CPG-7.AIncident Reporting
→CPG-7.AIncident Reporting
→CPG-7.DIncident Response Testing
CPS234.25Incident Response Plans4 targets
→BMA-12Incident Response Plan
→CPG-7.AIncident Reporting
→CPG-7.AIncident Reporting
→CPG-7.DIncident Response Testing
CPS234.26APRA Notification (72 Hours)4 targets
→BMA-12Incident Response Plan
→CPG-7.AIncident Reporting
→CPG-7.AIncident Reporting
→CPG-7.DIncident Response Testing
CPS234.27Control Weakness Notification (10 Days)
→CPG-5.AVulnerability Disclosure Program

Related Comparisons

Other APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) comparisons

APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) vs ISO/IEC 30111:20195 mappingsAPRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) vs C5 (Germany)5 mappingsAPRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) vs CAIQ (CSA)5 mappingsAPRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) vs ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices5 mappingsAPRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) vs NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)5 mappingsAPRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) vs NIST AI 600-1 Generative AI Profile5 mappingsAPRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) vs PAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments5 mappingsAPRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) vs Canada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management5 mappings

Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons

CSA CCM v4 vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.023 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.023 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.021 mappingsNIS2 Directive Implementing Acts vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.020 mappingsSouth Korea ISMS-P vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.019 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.019 mappingsCSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.019 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.019 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 769 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 769 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (815K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • ✓ Unlimited full-text search
  • ✓ Framework self-assessment
  • ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?

APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) has 40 controls across its framework, while CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 covers 43 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (12% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Third-Party Management and Testing, where 5 APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) controls have no direct CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?

Of 40 total APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) controls, 5 map directly to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls — representing 12% 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 Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?

35 APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) controls have no direct equivalent in CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Third-Party Management and Testing 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 Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is Third-Party Management and Testing (5 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

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.