27% of DORA you already have
APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management already covers about 27% of DORA, leaving
19 of 26 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 0
Likely covered 7
New work 19
No control in APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management
maps directly to one in DORA. Everything counted as covered is covered because both
map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather
than a lookup.
What is genuinely new work
Nothing in APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management reaches these. This is the list to scope.
DORA-Art.13Learning and evolving
DORA-Art.16Simplified ICT risk management framework
DORA-Art.18Classification of ICT-related incidents and cyber threats
DORA-Art.23Operational or security payment-related incidents
DORA-Art.24General requirements for the performance of digital operational resilience testing
DORA-Art.27Requirements for testers for the carrying out of TLPT
DORA-Art.29Preliminary assessment of ICT concentration risk at entity level
DORA-Art.30Key contractual provisions
DORA-Art.31Designation of critical ICT third-party service providers
DORA-Art.45Information-sharing arrangements on cyber threat information and intelligence
DORA-Art.5Governance and organisation
DORA-Art.50Administrative penalties and remedial measures
DORA-Art.56Data protection
DORA-Art.6ICT risk management framework
DORA-Art.7ICT systems, protocols and tools
DORA-Art.9Protection and prevention
Show the 7 you already have
DORA-Art.11Response and recovery
DORA-Art.12Backup policies and procedures, restoration and recovery
DORA-Art.17ICT-related incident management process
DORA-Art.19Reporting of major ICT-related incidents
DORA-Art.25Testing of ICT tools and systems
DORA-Art.26Advanced testing of ICT tools, systems and processes based on TLPT
DORA-Art.28ICT third-party risk: general principles
How this is calculated
Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management to that control. Likely
covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third
standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one
friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified
fact.
Coverage is not symmetric.
Run it the other way and you will get a
different number; both are correct.
From 332,959 cross-framework control
mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against
their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means
the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.
Try another pair ยท
Today's edition