ASIC Cyber Resilience Good PracticesvsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions
See exactly how ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices controls map to Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices maps to Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions with 41% coverage across 9 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 22 ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices controls identifies 13 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Detect and Respond.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 22 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 21 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Detect and Respond(9 mappings)
Board and Governance(6 mappings)
Identify and Protect(2 mappings)
Resilience and Recovery(3 mappings)
+1 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 693 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever — no credit card required
Related Comparisons
Other ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices comparisons
Other Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 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 ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices and Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions?
ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices has 22 controls across its framework, while Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions covers 19 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 9 overlapping controls (41% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Detect and Respond, where 4 ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices controls have no direct Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions equivalent.
How many controls map between ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices and Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions?
Of 22 total ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices controls, 9 map directly to Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions controls — representing 41% coverage. The remaining 13 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices to Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions?
13 ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices controls have no direct equivalent in Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions. The highest concentration of gaps is in Detect and Respond with 4 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 ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices and Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions?
The domain with the highest gap count is Detect and Respond (4 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.