Clocks: (a) as soon as possible and within 20 business days of signing, or materially changing, an agreement for a service the entity relies on to carry out a critical operation; and (b) before entering into any material offshoring arrangement, or when a significant change to such an arrangement is proposed, including where personnel or data used for the service will sit offshore. A material offshoring arrangement is a material arrangement whose service is performed outside Australia, even if the provider is Australian-incorporated; a foreign-incorporated provider performing the service in Australia is not offshoring.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
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.
APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management 60 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management your existing evidence covers. Hold NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and 30 of 87 APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management 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. 4 were rejected on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.