CPS 234, CPS 230, ISO 27001 - and the cross-framework mapping that means work done for one counts toward the rest. Built for the compliance demands of regulated financial institutions.
APRA-regulated entities don't choose one framework. They manage CPS 234, CPS 230, and CPS 232 simultaneously - plus ISO 27001 as the international baseline, and often Essential Eight for ASD alignment. Each framework has overlapping but not identical requirements. Without cross-mapping, that's five separate compliance programmes with significant duplication and no mechanism to capture the efficiency.
The manual approach - spreadsheets, shared drives, annual review cycles - doesn't scale to the compliance demands of prudential regulation. Evidence goes stale. Controls drift. When APRA asks for your CPS 234 attestation, the last thing you want is to reconstruct twelve months of compliance work from memory. CyberHeed maintains compliance posture continuously, cross-maps controls across every active framework, and gives you the evidence-backed reporting that prudential regulators expect.
CPS 234 sets minimum information security requirements for APRA-regulated entities - banks, credit unions, insurers, superannuation funds. It covers defined responsibilities, security capability commensurate with the size and extent of threats, policy frameworks, controls testing, and incident notification. CyberHeed is built to support CPS 234 compliance end to end.
CPS 234 requires entities to classify information assets by criticality and sensitivity, and to implement controls commensurate with that classification. CyberHeed's SmartPrep conversations guide you through asset classification systematically. The documentation generated reflects your actual asset landscape - not a generic template. Evidence uploaded against each control is AI-validated to confirm it satisfies the CPS 234 requirement, not just a related concept.
CPS 234 holds entities accountable for the information security capability of third parties managing their information assets. CyberHeed's multi-tenant architecture supports vendor assessments: your critical service providers complete structured assessments on the same platform, upload evidence that the AI validates, and share compliance posture with you. You maintain oversight of your third-party security landscape without relying on self-reported questionnaires.
CPS 234 requires entities to notify APRA within 72 hours of a material information security incident, and to maintain an incident response capability commensurate with the entity's risk profile. CyberHeed supports your incident response capability by ensuring your Incident Response Plan is documented, current, and evidence-backed. AI feedback identifies gaps between your documented capability and the standard's requirements before an incident occurs.
CPS 234 requires periodic testing of controls through internal audit, penetration testing, or vulnerability scanning - and the results must be reviewed by the board. CyberHeed tracks testing activities as recurring tasks, maintains evidence of testing completed, and generates board-ready compliance summaries that include testing outcomes. The board receives accurate, evidence-backed reporting rather than management assurances.
CPS 230 (Operational Risk Management) came into effect in July 2025 and significantly expanded APRA's requirements for operational resilience. CPS 230 overlaps substantially with CPS 234 - controls implemented for one count toward the other when cross-mapped correctly. CyberHeed handles the cross-mapping automatically.
CPS 230 introduces detailed requirements for service provider management that extend CPS 234's third-party obligations: material service provider registers, due diligence processes, monitoring, and exit planning. For entities already managing CPS 234 compliance in CyberHeed, the CPS 230 extension covers the incremental requirements - not the full programme from scratch. The work already done compounds.
CyberHeed maps controls across CPS 234, CPS 230, and CPS 232 simultaneously. Evidence validated for an incident response control under CPS 234 automatically counts toward the relevant CPS 230 operational resilience requirement. The platform identifies where the frameworks converge and where they diverge - so your team focuses on the genuinely new requirements, not on duplicating work already done.
See your organisation's posture against each CPS standard independently, and your aggregate posture across all active frameworks. When your board asks "how are we doing on APRA compliance?", the answer reflects all CPS standards simultaneously - not a separate report for each one.
Prudential regulators expect more than a status update. CPS 234 requires board oversight of information security. APRA supervisory visits require evidence of ongoing compliance activity. CyberHeed provides the structured reporting that meets these expectations - backed by real data, not assembled from notes.
Generate board-level compliance reports from live data. Current posture, maturity trajectory, control coverage, outstanding gaps - all in a format your board can review and a format that demonstrates active oversight. The board fulfils its CPS 234 governance obligation. Management has the data to support it.
Prudential compliance isn't about having documentation - it's about having documentation that satisfies the specific requirements. When you upload evidence against a CPS 234 control, the AI assesses whether the document actually satisfies the obligation - not just whether it's related. Gaps between your documentation and the standard's requirements are identified before your auditor identifies them.
APRA's supervisory approach is risk-based. Regulators want to see that your security maturity is improving, not just that you have documentation on file. CyberHeed's maturity trajectory data shows the direction of travel - where you were, where you are, and the specific improvements made. That trajectory is the evidence of active governance that prudential regulators look for.
When regulators use CyberHeed to oversee the sector, and financial institutions use CyberHeed to manage their compliance, the data flows both ways with appropriate controls. Regulators see aggregated sector posture. You get instant feedback on your compliance submissions. The reporting burden on both sides drops.
This is the long-term value proposition for the sector: a shared compliance infrastructure where the work done by each institution contributes to sector-wide visibility, and where regulators can move from periodic data collection to continuous monitoring. CyberHeed is already deployed on both sides of that relationship.
When your regulator is reviewing your institution's compliance posture, they see the same data you do - evidence-backed, current, and structured against the same frameworks. There's no translation layer between your compliance management and their supervisory view. The conversation is about the substance of compliance, not the mechanics of reporting.
Regulators using CyberHeed see every supervised entity's compliance posture assessed against the same frameworks, using the same criteria, with the same structured output. Thematic reviews that used to require data collection from each institution can draw from existing posture data. The sector's compliance reporting becomes more consistent and more useful.
When you submit documentation as evidence for a prudential requirement, the AI provides immediate feedback. You know before any regulatory review whether your evidence satisfies the requirement. You remediate gaps before they become findings. The supervisory process becomes less adversarial and more collaborative.
Information Security (APRA)
Operational Risk Management (APRA)
Business Continuity Management (APRA)
International information security management standard
ASD mitigation strategies for Australian entities
NIST Cybersecurity Framework for international alignment
Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard for payment operations
Dubai Financial Services Authority requirements for DIFC-regulated entities
Dubai Electronic Security Centre Information Security Regulation
Saudi National Cybersecurity Authority Essential Cybersecurity Controls
Cross-mapped controls mean work done for one framework counts toward the rest - automatically.
The regulatory side: aggregated oversight, thematic reviews, and sector-wide posture monitoring. [Links to: regulators.html]
Multi-framework management, continuous posture monitoring, and evidence-backed board reporting. [Links to: cisos.html]
Multi-subsidiary compliance governance for financial groups with subsidiaries across regions. [Links to: enterprise.html]
Book a demo. We'll walk you through CPS 234 and CPS 230 compliance, cross-framework mapping, AI evidence validation, and board-ready reporting.
Book a Demo