J-SOX
Japan's ICFR regulation for listed companies under FIEA
APRA CPS 234
Australian prudential standard for information security resilience
Quick Verdict
J-SOX ensures reliable financial reporting for Japanese listed firms via ICFR assessments, while APRA CPS 234 mandates cyber resilience for Australian financials with strict testing and notifications. Companies adopt them for regulatory compliance and investor trust.
J-SOX
Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA)
Key Features
- Mandatory ICFR for 3,800 listed companies and subsidiaries
- Principles-based flexibility with rigorous documentation demands
- Explicit central focus on IT governance and controls
- Management assessment plus external auditor attestation
- Risk-based scoping using COSO plus IT response
APRA CPS 234
Prudential Standard CPS 234 Information Security
Key Features
- Board ultimate responsibility for information security
- 72-hour APRA notification for material incidents
- Systematic risk-based testing of controls
- Third-party information asset coverage required
- Internal audit assurance including vendors
Detailed Analysis
A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.
J-SOX Details
What It Is
J-SOX, or Japan's internal control over financial reporting under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA) promulgated in 2006, is a regulatory framework effective April 2008. It mandates management assessment of ICFR for listed companies, emphasizing principles-based, risk-based approaches with COSO alignment plus explicit IT response.
Key Components
- Five COSO components plus IT response and asset preservation.
- Entity-level, process-level, ITGC controls.
- Risk-based scoping, key controls identification.
- Management evaluation with external auditor attestation on report reliability.
Why Organizations Use It
- Mandatory for ~3,800 listed firms and subsidiaries to ensure financial transparency.
- Mitigates misstatement risks, builds investor trust.
- Enhances governance, reduces audit costs via efficiency.
- Strategic benefits: operational resilience, automation leverage.
Implementation Overview
- Phased: governance, scoping, design, testing, monitoring.
- Targets listed companies in Japan; multinationals with Japanese entities.
- Requires documentation, evidence, annual reporting with auditor review.
APRA CPS 234 Details
What It Is
APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 (Information Security) is a binding regulation issued by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority for regulated financial entities. Effective from 1 July 2019, it mandates maintaining information security capabilities commensurate with threats 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, testing, and notification.
Key Components
- Governance: Board ultimate responsibility (para 13), defined roles (para 14).
- Risk management: Asset classification by criticality/sensitivity (para 20), commensurate controls (para 21).
- Incident response: Detection mechanisms, annual plan testing (paras 23-26).
- Assurance: Systematic testing (paras 27-31), internal audit (paras 32-34).
- Reporting: 72-hour material incident notification, 10-day control weakness alerts (paras 35-36). No fixed control count; focuses on outcomes with third-party extensions.
Why Organizations Use It
Mandatory for APRA-regulated entities (ADIs, insurers, super funds). Drives cyber resilience, regulatory compliance, reduced operational risk, stakeholder protection, and supply-chain accountability. Enhances trust and avoids penalties.
Implementation Overview
Phased: gap analysis, policy framework, asset inventory, controls/testing, TPRM integration. Applies to all sizes in Australian financial sector; requires independent audits, no formal certification but APRA supervision.
Key Differences
| Aspect | J-SOX | APRA CPS 234 |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | ICFR for financial reporting | Information security and cyber resilience |
| Industry | Japanese listed companies | Australian financial institutions |
| Nature | Mandatory securities law | Mandatory prudential standard |
| Testing | Annual management assessment, auditor review | Systematic testing, internal audit assurance |
| Penalties | FSA fines, reputational damage | APRA enforcement, supervisory actions |
Scope
Industry
Nature
Testing
Penalties
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about J-SOX and APRA CPS 234
J-SOX FAQ
APRA CPS 234 FAQ
You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

How to Implement CIS Controls v8.1 as a ‘Control Backbone’ for NIS2 & DORA (Step-by-Step Implementation Guide)
Deploy CIS Controls v8.1 as a control backbone for NIS2 & DORA compliance. Step-by-step roadmap (IG1→IG2), deliverables, metrics & evidence model for hybrid/clo

What is DORA and which Requirements does the Standard define?
Discover DORA requirements for info security, strict authority monitoring, and steps to achieve compliance. Build a resilient organization with our detailed gui

CIS Controls v8.1, Operationalized: Top 10 Reasons Compliance Monitoring Software Accelerates Real-World Implementation
Operationalize CIS Controls v8.1 with compliance monitoring software. Turn checklists into dashboards, tickets, and audit-proof workflows. Top 10 reasons it acc
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.
Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages
ISO 21001 vs ISO 41001
ISO 21001 vs ISO 41001: Compare education's learner-centric EOMS and FM's demand-aligned systems. Uncover PDCA scopes, leadership, risks, and certification benefits now.
ISO 17025 vs 23 NYCRR 500
Compare ISO 17025 vs 23 NYCRR 500: Decode lab competence standards against NY cybersecurity regs for regulated finance. Gain compliance edge—read now!
LGPD vs COPPA
LGPD vs COPPA: Brazil's GDPR-like law vs US kids' privacy act. Compare scopes, 10 principles & 2% fines vs parental consent & $43K penalties. Master global compliance now!