25% of Laos Law on Prevention and Combating Cybercrime (2015) you already have
APRA CPS 234 already covers about 25% of Laos Law on Prevention and Combating Cybercrime (2015), leaving
6 of 8 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 2
Likely covered 0
New work 6
What is genuinely new work
Nothing in APRA CPS 234 reaches these. This is the list to scope.
LAOS-CC-Content-Offences-Online-Social-Media-Damage-Article-13-Misinformation-National-SecurityLaos Cybercrime Content Offences + Online Social Media Damage + Article 13 + Misinformation + National Security
LAOS-CC-Investigation-Procedural-Powers-Inspection-Articles-40-53-MoPS-Search-Seizure-ProductionLaos Cybercrime Investigation + Procedural Powers + Inspection + Articles 40-53
LAOS-CC-Penalties-International-Cooperation-Article-56-Fines-Imprisonment-Aggravating-CircumstancesLaos Cybercrime Penalties + International Cooperation + Article 56 + Fines + Imprisonment
LAOS-CC-Prevention-Awareness-Education-Article-20-Public-Campaigns-Capacity-BuildingLaos Cybercrime Prevention + Awareness + Education + Article 20 + Public Campaigns + Capacity Building
LAOS-CC-Scope-Application-Law-61-NA-15-July-2015-Lao-National-Assembly-MoPT-7-Chapters-CybercrimeLaos Cybercrime Law Scope and Application + Law 61/NA + 15 July 2015 + Lao National Assembly + MoPT
LAOS-CC-Substantive-Offences-Unauthorized-Access-Interception-Interference-Data-Articles-8-12Laos Cybercrime Substantive Offences + Unauthorized Access + Interception + Interference + Articles 8-12
Show the 2 you already have
LAOS-CC-LaoCERT-Incident-Response-National-Cybersecurity-Coordination-Article-22Laos Cybercrime LaoCERT + Incident Response + National Cybersecurity Coordination + Article 22
LAOS-CC-Network-Security-Information-Security-Obligations-Article-21-Service-Provider-DutiesLaos Cybercrime Network Security + Information Security Obligations + Article 21 + Service Provider Duties
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 ยท
Today's edition