FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)vsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)
See exactly how FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls map to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) maps to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) with 24% coverage across 12 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 49 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls identifies 37 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Inherent Risk Profile.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 49 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
Domain 1: Cyber Risk Management and Oversight(3 mappings)
Domain 2: Threat Intelligence and Collaboration(4 mappings)
Domain 3: Cybersecurity Controls(3 mappings)
Domain 4: External Dependency Management(1 mappings)
Domain 5: Cyber Incident Management and Resilience(2 mappings)
Inherent Risk Profile: Risk Categories(2 mappings)
Maturity Levels(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) comparisons
Other HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 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 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) and HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?
FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) has 49 controls across its framework, while HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 12 overlapping controls (24% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Inherent Risk Profile, where 5 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls have no direct HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) equivalent.
How many controls map between FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) and HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?
Of 49 total FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls, 12 map directly to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls — representing 24% coverage. The remaining 37 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?
37 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls have no direct equivalent in HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF). The highest concentration of gaps is in Inherent Risk Profile 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 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) and HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Inherent Risk Profile (5 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.