ISO/IEC 30111:2019vsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)
See exactly how ISO/IEC 30111:2019 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:
ISO/IEC 30111:2019 maps to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) with 18% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 34 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls identifies 33 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 34 controls analysed | 715 frameworks | 414K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 8 of 8 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 414K+ mappings across 715 frameworks.
Clause 1-4: Introduction(5 mappings)
Clause 5: Vulnerability Handling Policy and Organization(2 mappings)
Clause 8: Post-Release Activities(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 30111:2019 comparisons
Other HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 715 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 715 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (414K+)
- ✓ 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 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 and HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?
ISO/IEC 30111:2019 has 34 controls across its framework, while HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (18% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process, where 5 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls have no direct HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO/IEC 30111:2019 and HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?
Of 34 total ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls, 6 map directly to HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) controls — representing 18% coverage. The remaining 33 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 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?
33 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls have no direct equivalent in HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF). 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 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)?
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.
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.