Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO/IEC 30111:2019vsAPRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)

See exactly how ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls map to APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

12
Controls Mapped
10
Gaps Found
27%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO/IEC 30111:2019 maps to APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) with 27% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 22 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls identifies 16 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 22 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 12 of 12 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Clause 1-4: Introduction(7 mappings)

29147-3Terms and definitions
CPS234.15Roles and Responsibilities
30111-1Scope
CPS234.27Control Weakness Notification (10 Days)
30111-3Terms and definitions5 targets
CPS234.15Roles and Responsibilities
CPS234.24Incident Response Mechanisms
CPS234.25Incident Response Plans
CPS234.26APRA Notification (72 Hours)
CPS234.27Control Weakness Notification (10 Days)

Clause 5: Vulnerability Handling Policy and Organization(4 mappings)

30111-5.1Organizational policy
CPS234.15Roles and Responsibilities
30111-5.2Vulnerability handling team3 targets
CPS234.24Incident Response Mechanisms
CPS234.25Incident Response Plans
CPS234.26APRA Notification (72 Hours)

Clause 8: Post-Release Activities(1 mappings)

30111-8.1Post-release monitoring
CPS234.27Control Weakness Notification (10 Days)

Related Comparisons

Other ISO/IEC 30111:2019 comparisons

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

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 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 and APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)?

ISO/IEC 30111:2019 has 22 controls across its framework, while APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) covers 19 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (27% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process, where 5 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls have no direct APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO/IEC 30111:2019 and APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)?

Of 22 total ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls, 6 map directly to APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia) controls — representing 27% coverage. The remaining 16 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 30111:2019 to APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)?

16 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls have no direct equivalent in APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia). The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process 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 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 and APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 — Information Security (Australia)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process (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.