Does APRA CPS 234 cover FIRST CSIRT Services Framework and Standards?

25% of FIRST CSIRT Services Framework and Standards you already have

APRA CPS 234 already covers about 25% of FIRST CSIRT Services Framework and Standards, leaving 9 of 12 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 1 Likely covered 2 New work 9

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in APRA CPS 234 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

FIRST-CSIRTF-Mandate-Quality

CSIRT Services Framework v2.1 - Mandate, Scope and Quality Management

FIRST-CSIRTF-SA1-ISEM

Service Area 1 - Information Security Event Management (Monitoring, Detection, Triage)

FIRST-CSIRTF-SA4-SituationalAwareness

Service Area 4 - Situational Awareness and Threat Intelligence

FIRST-CVSS-v4

FIRST Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) v4.0 (2023) and CVSS v3.1 Legacy

FIRST-IEP-MPCVD

FIRST Information Exchange Policy (IEP) v2.0 + Multi-Party Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (MPCVD)

FIRST-PSIRT-Services

FIRST PSIRT Services Framework (2020) - Product Security Incident Response Team Service Catalog

FIRST-Sectoral-NationalCSIRT

FIRST Sectoral Coordination - National CSIRTs, ISACs, ENISA, NIS2 + Industry Frameworks

FIRST-Status-Pipeline

FIRST Standards Pipeline - 2024-2025 Roadmap and Coordination with NIS2, CIRCIA, EU CRA

FIRST-TLP-v2

FIRST Traffic Light Protocol (TLP) v2.0 (2022) - Information-Sharing Classification

Show the 3 you already have

FIRST-CSIRTF-SA2-ISIM

Service Area 2 - Information Security Incident Management (Intake, Analysis, Containment, Recovery, Coordination, Crisis)

FIRST-CSIRTF-SA3-VulnMgmt

Service Area 3 - Vulnerability Management and Coordinated Disclosure

FIRST-CSIRTF-SA5-KnowledgeTransfer

Service Area 5 - Knowledge Transfer (Awareness, Training, Exercises, Advisory)

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in APRA CPS 234 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 · Today's edition