TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)

See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

9
Controls Mapped
26
Gaps Found
23%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 maps to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) with 23% coverage across 9 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 30 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Device Security.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 723 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 9 of 9 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 723 frameworks.

Account Security(1 mappings)

CPG-1.CUnique Credentials
→HKMA-CRAF-Domain3-4-Protection-DetectionHKMA C-RAF Domain 3 (Protection) + Domain 4 (Detection) - Access, Data, Infrastructure, Application, Monitoring, Testing, Threat Intel

Data Security(2 mappings)

CPG-3.ALog Collection
→HKMA-CRAF-Domain3-4-Protection-DetectionHKMA C-RAF Domain 3 (Protection) + Domain 4 (Detection) - Access, Data, Infrastructure, Application, Monitoring, Testing, Threat Intel
CPG-3.BSecure Log Storage
→HKMA-CRAF-Domain3-4-Protection-DetectionHKMA C-RAF Domain 3 (Protection) + Domain 4 (Detection) - Access, Data, Infrastructure, Application, Monitoring, Testing, Threat Intel

Governance & Training(1 mappings)

CPG-4.CBasic Cybersecurity Training
→HKMA-CRAF-Domain3-4-Protection-DetectionHKMA C-RAF Domain 3 (Protection) + Domain 4 (Detection) - Access, Data, Infrastructure, Application, Monitoring, Testing, Threat Intel

Governance and Training(1 mappings)

CPG-4.CBasic Cybersecurity Training
→HKMA-CRAF-Domain3-4-Protection-DetectionHKMA C-RAF Domain 3 (Protection) + Domain 4 (Detection) - Access, Data, Infrastructure, Application, Monitoring, Testing, Threat Intel

Vulnerability Management(1 mappings)

CPG-5.AVulnerability Disclosure Program
→HKMA-CRAF-Domain3-4-Protection-DetectionHKMA C-RAF Domain 3 (Protection) + Domain 4 (Detection) - Access, Data, Infrastructure, Application, Monitoring, Testing, Threat Intel

Supply Chain and Third Party(1 mappings)

CPG-6.BSupply Chain Incident Reporting
→HKMA-CRAF-Domain1-2-Governance-IdentificationHKMA C-RAF Domain 1 (Governance) + Domain 2 (Identification) - Cyber Strategy, Risk Management, Asset Management, Threat Assessment

Network Segmentation(2 mappings)

CPG-8.ANetwork Segmentation
→HKMA-CRAF-Domain3-4-Protection-DetectionHKMA C-RAF Domain 3 (Protection) + Domain 4 (Detection) - Access, Data, Infrastructure, Application, Monitoring, Testing, Threat Intel
CPG-8.CEncrypted DNS
→HKMA-CRAF-Domain3-4-Protection-DetectionHKMA C-RAF Domain 3 (Protection) + Domain 4 (Detection) - Access, Data, Infrastructure, Application, Monitoring, Testing, Threat Intel

Related Comparisons

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

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs Azure Security Benchmark14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-124 Revision 2 - Guidelines for Managing the Security of Mobile Devices13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements12 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs ISO/IEC 27011:202412 mappings

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

Ghana Cybersecurity Act vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)3 mappingsUS Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) - Higher Education Safeguards Rule vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)3 mappingsTEFCA - Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)3 mappingsPrivacy Act 1988 (Australia) vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)3 mappingsOWASP ASVS vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)3 mappingsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)3 mappingsGLBA vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)3 mappingsISO/IEC 27011:2024 vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)3 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 723 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 723 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 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 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 35 controls across its framework, while HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 9 overlapping controls (23% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 8 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) equivalent.

How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?

Of 35 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 9 map directly to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls — representing 23% coverage. The remaining 30 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 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?

30 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF). The highest concentration of gaps is in Device 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 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Device 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.