APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System
CBPR Program Requirements: Security Safeguards

APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System CBPR-PR-34: Risk assessments and third party certifications

The applicant uses risk assessments or third party certifications in support of its security safeguards.

Maintained by Gerard BlokdykVerified against the published standard Control text last updated

What else in your programme already covers this

This control maps to 25 controls across 13 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.

FedRAMP High · 3 controls

FedRAMP Moderate · 3 controls

NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 · 3 controls

  • AUCDR-IS-STEP3 Step 3 - Have and maintain an information security capability
  • AUCDR-IS-STEP4 Step 4 - Implement a formal controls assessment program
  • ASBv3-DS-1 Conduct threat modeling
  • PV-5 Perform vulnerability assessments

C5 (Germany) · 2 controls

  • C5-OIS-01 Information Security Management System (ISMS)
  • C5-OIS-07 Application of the Risk Management Policy

ISO 27701:2019 · 2 controls

  • 5.4.1 Actions to address risks and opportunities
  • 5.6.2 Information security risk assessment

CCPA/CPRA · 1 control

  • §1798.185(a)(15) Risk Assessments for High-Risk Processing

GDPR · 1 control

HIPAA Security Rule · 1 control

Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.

Other controls in CBPR Program Requirements: Security Safeguards

You are reading one control. How much of APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System have you already done?

APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System CBPR-PR-34 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System your existing evidence covers. Hold GDPR and 43 of 59 APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System controls already carry evidence.

Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the GDPR pair alone.

Query this from an agent

The graph holds this control, the 25 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.