What is the primary objective of **DORA**?

**The primary objective of DORA is to strengthen the digital operational resilience of the EU financial sector against ICT disruptions, including cyberattacks, system failures, and third-party risks.** Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 mandates ICT risk management, incident reporting, resilience testing, and third-party oversight for 20 financial entity types and critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs), applying fully from January 17, 2025.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **DORA**?

**DORA applies to 20 types of EU financial entities, including credit institutions, insurance undertakings, investment firms, payment institutions, and crypto-asset service providers, plus critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs).** Approximately 22,000 regulated entities must comply, with CTPPs like cloud providers subject to ESA designation and oversight by end-2025.

Oes **DORA** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**DORA does not mandate external audits or third-party certification but requires independent digital operational resilience testing, including annual basic tests and triennial threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) for critical entities.** Testing may involve external providers, with results reported to authorities; third-party oversight includes contractual audit rights for CTPPs.

How often should an assessment for **DORA** be performed?

**DORA requires annual basic ICT resilience tests, such as vulnerability assessments, and triennial advanced threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) for designated critical entities.** ICT risk management frameworks must undergo annual reviews, with proportionality applied based on entity size, complexity, and risk profile.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **DORA**?

**Non-compliance with DORA incurs administrative fines up to 2% of total global annual turnover for firms or €5 million (or 10% of annual salary) for individuals.** Competent authorities and ESAs enforce penalties, alongside potential reputational damage and operational restrictions, as seen in heightened scrutiny post-2024 incidents.

An **DORA** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, DORA's ICT risk management, incident reporting, and testing requirements align with established resilience practices, facilitating mapping to comparable frameworks.** Organizations leverage existing controls for proportionality, though DORA's financial-sector specificity and timelines (e.g., 4-hour incident reporting) demand tailored adaptations.

What is the first step to begin implementing **DORA**?

**The first step for DORA implementation is conducting a gap analysis against the ICT risk management framework RTS published January 17, 2024.** This identifies deficiencies in ICT strategies, third-party dependencies, and testing programs, enabling establishment of a comprehensive framework overseen by the management body ahead of the January 17, 2025 deadline.

What is the primary objective of **APRA CPS 234**?

**APRA CPS 234 requires regulated entities to maintain an information security capability commensurate with vulnerabilities and threats to information assets.** This minimises the likelihood and impact of incidents on confidentiality, integrity, or availability (**CIA**), including assets managed by related parties or third parties (paragraphs 15–16). Effective from 1 July 2019, it ensures continued sound operation of the entity.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **APRA CPS 234**?

**APRA CPS 234 applies to all APRA-regulated entities, including authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs), general insurers, life companies, private health insurers, and RSE licensees.** It covers authorised non-operating holding companies (**NOHCs**) and group Heads, extending to non-regulated group entities (paragraphs 2–4). Foreign ADIs and certain insurers comply for Australian branch operations only (paragraph 3).

Does **APRA CPS 234** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**APRA CPS 234 does not mandate external audits or third-party certifications.** It requires internal audit to review design and operating effectiveness of information security controls, including those of related parties and third parties, using appropriately skilled personnel (paragraphs 32–34). Entities may rely on third-party assurance if internal audit assesses its sufficiency for material assets (paragraph 34).

How often should an assessment for **APRA CPS 234** be performed?

**APRA CPS 234 requires systematic testing of controls with nature and frequency commensurate with vulnerabilities, threats, asset criticality, sensitivity, and changes.** The testing program must be reviewed at least annually or upon material changes to assets or the business environment (paragraphs 27, 31). Internal audit provides ongoing assurance (paragraph 32).

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **APRA CPS 234**?

**Non-compliance with APRA CPS 234 exposes entities to APRA's prudential powers, including directions, penalties, and heightened supervision.** Entities must notify APRA within **72 hours** of material incidents (paragraph 35) or **10 business days** of material control weaknesses not remediable timely (paragraph 36). APRA may adjust requirements in writing but enforces via remediation programs.

An **APRA CPS 234** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, APRA CPS 234 can be mapped to frameworks like ISO 27001 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework.** Its outcomes-based approach—governance, controls, testing, and third-party oversight—aligns with ISO 27001's ISMS and NIST's Identify-Protect-Detect-Respond-Recover functions, enabling proportional implementation while meeting CPS 234's board accountability and notification requirements.

What is the first step to begin implementing **APRA CPS 234**?

**The first step is for the Board to approve oversight of information security, ensuring defined roles and responsibilities across governance bodies.** Per paragraph 13, the Board is ultimately responsible; commence with asset classification by criticality and sensitivity (paragraph 20) to drive commensurate capability, policies, and controls (paragraphs 14–18).

DORA vs APRA CPS 234

Standards Comparison

DORA

Mandatory

2023

EU regulation for digital operational resilience in finance

APRA CPS 234

Mandatory

2019

Australian prudential standard for information security resilience

Quick Verdict

DORA mandates EU-wide digital resilience for financial entities with TLPT and third-party oversight, while APRA CPS 234 enforces Australian financials' information security via board accountability, asset classification, and 72-hour incident reporting. Organizations adopt them for regulatory compliance and cyber resilience.

Digital Operational Resilience

DORA

Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, Digital Operational Resilience Act

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

High

Implementation Time

18-24 months

Key Features

Mandates comprehensive ICT risk management frameworks
Standardizes 4-hour major incident reporting timelines
Requires triennial threat-led penetration testing (TLPT)
Oversees critical third-party ICT providers (CTPPs)
Applies proportionally to 20 financial entity types

Information Security

APRA CPS 234

APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 Information Security

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

High

Implementation Time

12-18 months

Key Features

Board ultimate responsibility for information security
72-hour APRA notification for material incidents
Third-party managed assets fully in scope
Risk-based systematic control testing required
Internal audit assurance of all controls

Detailed Analysis

A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.

DORA Details

What It Is

The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), formally Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, is a transformative EU regulation for bolstering digital operational resilience in the financial sector. It targets ICT disruptions like cyberattacks and third-party failures, applying to 20 financial entity types and critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs). DORA employs a risk-based, proportional approach to harmonize rules across 27 member states.

Key Components

**ICT Risk Management FrameworksIdentify, protect, detect, respond, recover from risks.
**Incident Reporting4-hour initial, 72-hour intermediate notifications for major incidents.
**Resilience TestingAnnual basic tests; triennial TLPT for critical entities.
**Third-Party OversightDue diligence, monitoring, ESAs supervision of CTPPs. Enforced via RTS/ITS without certification, but with strict compliance mandates and fines up to 2% turnover.

Why Organizations Use It

Mandatory for ~22,000 EU entities to mitigate systemic risks amid 74% ransomware prevalence. Enhances resilience, ensures regulatory harmony, builds stakeholder trust, and counters threats like CrowdStrike outages.

Implementation Overview

Gap analyses, framework development, testing programs, vendor contracts. Tailored by size/complexity; full application January 17, 2025; involves ESAs oversight and ongoing reporting.

APRA CPS 234 Details

What It Is

APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 (Information Security) is a binding prudential regulation for APRA-regulated entities in Australia, including banks, insurers, and superannuation funds. Effective from 1 July 2019, it requires maintaining information security capabilities commensurate with threats and vulnerabilities to minimize incidents impacting confidentiality, integrity, or availability (CIA) of information assets, including those managed by third parties. It adopts a risk-based, assurance-driven approach emphasizing governance and evidence.

Key Components

Board ultimate responsibility (para 13) and defined roles (para 14)
Asset classification by criticality/sensitivity (para 20)
Commensurate controls across asset lifecycle (para 21)
Systematic testing (paras 27-31) and internal audit assurance (paras 32-34)
72-hour notification for material incidents (para 35) and 10 business days for unremediable weaknesses (para 36) No fixed controls; ~24 core requirements focused on outcomes.

Why Organizations Use It

Mandatory compliance to avoid APRA penalties, directions, or heightened scrutiny
Enhances cyber resilience, protects depositors/policyholders, manages third-party risks
Builds stakeholder trust, operational continuity, competitive edge

Implementation Overview

Phased: gap analysis, policy framework, asset inventory, controls/testing, third-party assessments. Applies group-wide to financial sectors; requires independent audits, no formal certification. (178 words)

Key Differences

Aspect	DORA	APRA CPS 234
Scope	Digital operational resilience, ICT risks, third-party oversight	Information security capability, cyber incidents, asset controls
Industry	EU financial entities (20 types), critical ICT providers	Australian financials (ADIs, insurers, superannuation)
Nature	Mandatory EU regulation, harmonized rules	Mandatory prudential standard, board accountability
Testing	Annual basic, triennial TLPT, independent execution	Systematic risk-based, annual review, independent audit
Penalties	Up to 2% global turnover fines	Supervisory actions, remediation directives

Scope

DORA

Digital operational resilience, ICT risks, third-party oversight

APRA CPS 234

Information security capability, cyber incidents, asset controls

Industry

DORA

EU financial entities (20 types), critical ICT providers

APRA CPS 234

Australian financials (ADIs, insurers, superannuation)

Nature

DORA

Mandatory EU regulation, harmonized rules

APRA CPS 234

Mandatory prudential standard, board accountability

Testing

DORA

Annual basic, triennial TLPT, independent execution

APRA CPS 234

Systematic risk-based, annual review, independent audit

Penalties

DORA

Up to 2% global turnover fines

APRA CPS 234

Supervisory actions, remediation directives

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about DORA and APRA CPS 234

DORA FAQ

APRA CPS 234 FAQ

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

CMMC Scoping Mastery for Defense Supply Chains: Enclave Mapping, Subcontractor Flow-Down, and CUI Inventory Blueprint

Master CMMC scoping for DIB: delineate FCI/CUI boundaries, segment enclaves, manage subcontractor flow-down. Prevent 80% assessment failures with SSP templates,

Beyond Reactive: Transforming Compliance into Real-Time Threat Prevention

Discover how modern compliance monitoring tools leverage continuous, real-time oversight and automated alerts to shift organizations from reactive problem-solving to proactive threat detection and prevention, safeguarding against emerging risks before they escalate.

Real-World ISO 27701 Success: Synthesized Case Studies, Metrics, and Lessons for Privacy Resilience

Real-world ISO 27701 success from Tribeca, Kocho: DSAR efficiency gains, risk score reductions, certification ROI. Synthesized metrics prove privacy resilience

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Transform your compliance journey with our AI-powered assessment platform

Assess your organization's maturity across multiple standards and regulations including ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2, NIST, GDPR, and hundreds more. Get actionable insights and track your progress with collaborative, AI-powered evaluations.

100+ Standards & Regulations

AI-Powered Insights

Collaborative Assessments

Actionable Recommendations

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

WELL vs SAMA CSF

Compare WELL vs SAMA CSF: Health certification meets Saudi financial cyber framework. Discover key differences, maturity models & strategies for ESG/resilience. Optimize now!

ISO 45001 vs MAS TRM

Compare ISO 45001 vs MAS TRM: Key differences in OH&S standards and tech risk guidelines for governance, compliance & resilience. Optimize your strategy now!

COPPA vs BRC

Compare COPPA vs BRC: Kids' online privacy rules vs food safety certs. Decode fines ($170M YouTube), consent, audits—boost compliance & avoid risks today!

DORA

APRA CPS 234

Quick Verdict

DORA

Key Features

APRA CPS 234

Key Features

Detailed Analysis

DORA Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

APRA CPS 234 Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

Key Differences

Scope

Industry

Nature

Testing

Penalties

Frequently Asked Questions

DORA FAQ

What is the primary objective of DORA?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with DORA?

Oes DORA require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for DORA be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with DORA?

An DORA be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing DORA?

APRA CPS 234 FAQ

What is the primary objective of APRA CPS 234?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with APRA CPS 234?

Does APRA CPS 234 require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for APRA CPS 234 be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with APRA CPS 234?

An APRA CPS 234 be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing APRA CPS 234?

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

CMMC Scoping Mastery for Defense Supply Chains: Enclave Mapping, Subcontractor Flow-Down, and CUI Inventory Blueprint

Beyond Reactive: Transforming Compliance into Real-Time Threat Prevention

Real-World ISO 27701 Success: Synthesized Case Studies, Metrics, and Lessons for Privacy Resilience

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

WELL vs SAMA CSF

ISO 45001 vs MAS TRM

COPPA vs BRC