Cross-Framework Mapping

HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)vsISO 22320:2018

See exactly how HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls map to ISO 22320:2018. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

16
Controls Mapped
8
Gaps Found
29%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) maps to ISO 22320:2018 with 29% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 24 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls identifies 17 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Domain 3: Protection.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 24 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 16 of 16 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Domain 1: Governance(8 mappings)

CRAF-1.1Cyber Risk Governance
ISO-22320-4.3Risk-based approach
CRAF-1.2Cyber Risk Strategy4 targets
ISO-22320-4.3Risk-based approach
ISO-22320-5.1General process requirements
ISO-22320-5.3Incident management structure (command)
ISO-22320-5.4Roles and responsibilities
CRAF-1.4Cyber Risk Roles and Responsibilities3 targets
ISO-22320-5.1General process requirements
ISO-22320-5.3Incident management structure (command)
ISO-22320-5.4Roles and responsibilities

Domain 3: Protection(1 mappings)

CRAF-3.6Third-Party Risk Management
ISO-22320-4.3Risk-based approach

Domain 5: Response and Recovery(7 mappings)

CRAF-5.1Incident Response Planning3 targets
ISO-22320-5.2Incident management process
ISO-22320-BAnnex B: Incident management plan structure
ISO-22320-CAnnex C: Incident management task examples
CRAF-5.2Incident Response Execution3 targets
ISO-22320-5.2Incident management process
ISO-22320-BAnnex B: Incident management plan structure
ISO-22320-CAnnex C: Incident management task examples
CRAF-5.3Recovery and Resilience
ISO-22320-5.2Incident management process

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 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) and ISO 22320:2018?

HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) has 24 controls across its framework, while ISO 22320:2018 covers 20 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (29% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Domain 3: Protection, where 5 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls have no direct ISO 22320:2018 equivalent.

How many controls map between HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) and ISO 22320:2018?

Of 24 total HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls, 7 map directly to ISO 22320:2018 controls — representing 29% coverage. The remaining 17 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) to ISO 22320:2018?

17 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 22320:2018. The highest concentration of gaps is in Domain 3: Protection 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 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) and ISO 22320:2018?

The domain with the highest gap count is Domain 3: Protection (5 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.