TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

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

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

11
Controls Mapped
29
Gaps Found
12%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

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

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 40 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Response and Recovery(9 mappings)

BMA-12Incident Response Plan3 targets
→CPS234.24Incident Response Mechanisms
→CPS234.25Incident Response Plans
→CPS234.26APRA Notification (72 Hours)
CPG-7.AIncident Response Plan3 targets
→CPS234.24Incident Response Mechanisms
→CPS234.25Incident Response Plans
→CPS234.26APRA Notification (72 Hours)
CPG-7.DIncident Response Testing3 targets
→CPS234.24Incident Response Mechanisms
→CPS234.25Incident Response Plans
→CPS234.26APRA Notification (72 Hours)

Vulnerability Management(1 mappings)

CPG-5.AKnown Exploited Vulnerability Remediation
→CPS234.27Control Weakness Notification (10 Days)

Supply Chain and Third Party(1 mappings)

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

Related Comparisons

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

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs CSA CCM v423 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange23 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs FAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation21 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts20 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers19 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk)19 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs South Korea ISMS-P19 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs ISO 27001:202219 mappings

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

ISO/IEC 30111:2019 vs APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)5 mappingsC5 (Germany) vs APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)5 mappingsCAIQ (CSA) vs APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)5 mappingsASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices vs APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)5 mappingsNIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) vs APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)5 mappingsNIST AI 600-1 Generative AI Profile vs APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)5 mappingsPAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments vs APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)5 mappingsCanada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management vs APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)5 mappings

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 →

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

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 40 controls across its framework, while APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) covers 19 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (12% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Data Security, where 8 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) equivalent.

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

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

35 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia). The highest concentration of gaps is in Data Security with 8 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 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Data Security (8 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.