HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)vsPrivacy Act 1988 (Australia)
See exactly how HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls map to Privacy Act 1988 (Australia). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) maps to Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) with 3% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 107 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls identifies 104 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Conducting the assessment: inherent risk, maturity and iCAST – HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 107 controls analysed | 1,016 frameworks | 316K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 3 of 3 control mappings across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 316K+ mappings across 1,016 frameworks.
Superseded batch representation – HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)(3 mappings)
A HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) to Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) controls your existing HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 3% in the header counts how many HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) comparisons
Other Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 1,016 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 1,016 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (316K+)
- ✓ 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 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) and Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)?
HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) has 107 controls across its framework, while Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 3 overlapping controls (3% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Conducting the assessment: inherent risk, maturity and iCAST – HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF), where 18 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls have no direct Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) equivalent.
How many controls map between HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) and Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)?
Of 107 total HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls, 3 map directly to Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) controls, representing 3% coverage. The remaining 104 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 Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)?
104 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls have no direct equivalent in Privacy Act 1988 (Australia). The highest concentration of gaps is in Conducting the assessment: inherent risk, maturity and iCAST – HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) with 18 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 Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Conducting the assessment: inherent risk, maturity and iCAST – HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) (18 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.