13% of Notifiable Data Breaches Scheme (Australia) you already have
ISO 27019 already covers about 13% of Notifiable Data Breaches Scheme (Australia), leaving
7 of 8 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 0
Likely covered 1
New work 7
No control in ISO 27019
maps directly to one in Notifiable Data Breaches Scheme (Australia). 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 ISO 27019 reaches these. This is the list to scope.
AUNDB-A1Applicability, Scope, and Data Breach Response Plan
AUNDB-A2Containment and 30-Day Assessment of Suspected Eligible Data Breaches
AUNDB-A4Notification to the Commissioner: Statement Content and Timing
AUNDB-A5Notification to Affected Individuals: Methods and Content
AUNDB-A6Exceptions: Remedial Action, Enforcement, Multiple Entities, Inconsistency with Other Law
AUNDB-A7Recordkeeping, Communications Strategy, Post-Incident Review, Board Reporting
AUNDB-A8Specific Information Categories, Third-Party and Cloud Coordination, OAIC Guidance Updates
Show the 1 you already have
AUNDB-A3Eligible Data Breach Determination and Serious Harm Threshold
How this is calculated
Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ISO 27019 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