TheArtOfService
Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR)CMMC 2.0

Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) covers 21.8% of CMMC 2.0

24 of the 110 controls in CMMC 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR). 86 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.

21.8%
of the target already covered
24
controls evidenced
86
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of CMMC 2.0 your Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.

37 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

Where the gaps are

Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.

Security Assessment4 of 4 evidenced
Incident Response3 of 3 evidenced
Risk Assessment3 of 3 evidenced
Awareness and Training2 of 3 evidenced, 1 to do
System and Information Integrity3 of 7 evidenced, 4 to do
System and Communications Protection3 of 16 evidenced, 13 to do
Access Control3 of 22 evidenced, 19 to do
Configuration Management1 of 9 evidenced, 8 to do
Media Protection1 of 9 evidenced, 8 to do
Identification and Authentication1 of 11 evidenced, 10 to do
Audit and Accountability0 of 9 evidenced, 9 to do
Maintenance0 of 6 evidenced, 6 to do
Physical Protection0 of 6 evidenced, 6 to do
Personnel Security0 of 2 evidenced, 2 to do

Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.

Claims that held

A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.

AUCDR-IS-1AC.L2-3.1.1argued against and upheld
Authorized Access Control

Control 1 limits access to the data environment to authorised users with unique IDs.

AUCDR-IS-3AC.L2-3.1.3argued against and upheld
Control CUI Flow

Control 3 requires data loss prevention governing flows of CDR data.

AUCDR-IS-1AC.L2-3.1.5argued against and upheld
Least Privilege

Control 1 requires role based access and restriction of administrative privileges.

AUCDR-IS-6AT.L2-3.2.1argued against and upheld
Role-Based Risk Awareness

Control 6 requires personnel be made aware of the security risks of their role.

AUCDR-IS-6AT.L2-3.2.2argued against and upheld
Role-Based Training

Control 6 requires training tuned to personnel who interact with CDR data.

AUCDR-IS-STEP4CA.L2-3.12.1argued against and upheld
Security Control Assessment

Step 4 requires periodic assessment of control effectiveness.

AUCDR-IS-STEP4CA.L2-3.12.2argued against and upheld
Plan of Action

Step 4 requires deficiencies be escalated and corrected.

AUCDR-IS-STEP4CA.L2-3.12.3argued against and upheld
Security Control Monitoring

Step 4 requires ongoing monitoring of control design and operating effectiveness.

Claims that did not hold

Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.

The full report

Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.

Buy this crosswalk