Cross-Framework Mapping

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security IncidentsvsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)

See exactly how ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls map to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

15
Controls Mapped
22
Gaps Found
35%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents maps to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) with 35% coverage across 13 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 37 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls identifies 24 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 37 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 15 of 15 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution(4 mappings)

ASD37-04User application hardening (Essential)
CRAF-3.3Infrastructure Security
ASD37-10Server application hardening (Very Good)
CRAF-3.3Infrastructure Security
ASD37-11Operating system hardening (Very Good)
CRAF-3.3Infrastructure Security
ASD37-17TLS encryption between email servers (Limited)
CRAF-3.2Data Security

Limiting the Extent of Cyber Security Incidents(1 mappings)

ASD37-20Multi-factor authentication (Essential)
CRAF-5.3Recovery and Resilience

Detecting Cyber Security Incidents and Responding(6 mappings)

ASD37-29Host-based IDS/IPS (Very Good)
CRAF-4.4Anomaly Detection
ASD37-31Hunt to discover incidents (Very Good)2 targets
CRAF-5.1Incident Response Planning
CRAF-5.2Incident Response Execution
ASD37-32Network-based IDS/IPS (Limited)
CRAF-4.4Anomaly Detection
ASD37-33Capture network traffic (Limited)2 targets
CRAF-5.1Incident Response Planning
CRAF-5.2Incident Response Execution

Recovering Data and System Availability(3 mappings)

ASD37-34Regular backups (Essential)
CRAF-5.3Recovery and Resilience
ASD37-35Business continuity and disaster recovery plans (Very Good)
CRAF-5.3Recovery and Resilience
ASD37-36System recovery capabilities (Very Good)
CRAF-5.3Recovery and Resilience

Preventing Malicious Insiders(1 mappings)

ASD37-37Personnel management (Very Good)
CRAF-3.5Security Awareness Training

Related Comparisons

Other ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents comparisons

Other HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 693 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • 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 →

What are the key differences between ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents and HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents has 37 controls across its framework, while HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) covers 24 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 13 overlapping controls (35% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution, where 13 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls have no direct HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) equivalent.

How many controls map between ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents and HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?

Of 37 total ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls, 13 map directly to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls — representing 35% coverage. The remaining 24 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?

24 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls have no direct equivalent in HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF). The highest concentration of gaps is in Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution with 13 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 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents and HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution (13 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

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.