What is the primary objective of **MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)**?

**The primary objective of MLPS 2.0 is to classify information systems into five protection levels based on potential harm to national security, social order, and public interests, ensuring commensurate technical, management, and governance controls.** Originating from China's 2017 Cybersecurity Law Article 21, it mandates graded protection for all network operators via standards like GB/T 22239-2020, covering traditional IT, cloud, IoT, big data, and industrial systems to prevent disruptions and breaches.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)**?

**All network operators in mainland China, including domestic firms, foreign-invested enterprises, and multinationals with local systems, must comply with MLPS 2.0.** This encompasses operators of critical infrastructure (energy, finance, telecom), e-commerce platforms, cloud services, and any systems processing data, with Levels 2+ requiring PSB filing and approval.

Does **MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**Yes, MLPS 2.0 requires external security reviews by licensed Chinese firms for Level 2 and above systems, scoring at least 75/100 for certification.** Operators submit results to local Public Security Bureaus (PSBs) for approval; Level 3+ demands annual evaluations per GB/T 28448-2019.

How often should an assessment for **MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)** be performed?

**Assessments under MLPS 2.0 must occur biennially for Level 2, annually for Level 3, semi-annually for Level 4, and as mandated for Level 5, plus after major changes.** Self-inspections are continuous, with PSB oversight ensuring re-evaluations align with system evolution.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)**?

**Non-compliance with MLPS 2.0 results in fines up to 100,000 RMB, operational suspensions, system shutdowns, and intensified PSB inspections.** Enforcement links certification to business license renewals, with severe cases escalating to criminal liability under the Cybersecurity Law.

Can **MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, MLPS 2.0 control domains—physical, network, data, operations, governance—map to ISO 27001 Annex A and NIST CSF categories.** Organizations leverage existing ISMS Statements of Applicability for gap analysis, though MLPS adds prescriptive baselines and PSB enforcement.

What is the primary objective of **CIS Controls**?

**The primary objective of CIS Controls is to provide a prioritized set of 18 cybersecurity best practices across 153 actionable Safeguards to reduce organizational attack surface and mitigate the most common cyber threats.** CIS Controls v8.1, developed by the Center for Internet Security, emphasizes foundational hygiene like asset inventory (**Control 1**) and software control (**Control 2**), scaling via **Implementation Groups (IG1–IG3)**—with IG1's 56 Safeguards as essential baseline for all organizations.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **CIS Controls**?

**No organization is universally legally required to comply with CIS Controls, as they are voluntary, consensus-driven best practices applicable to all industries and sizes.** Professionally, CISOs, IT managers, compliance officers, and auditors in sectors like finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure adopt them for cyber resilience; U.S. states like Connecticut and Louisiana reference CIS for "reasonable security" safe harbor, while MSPs use them for client SLAs and procurement.

Does **CIS Controls** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**CIS Controls does not require external audits or third-party certification, as it lacks a formal certification scheme.** Organizations self-assess via tools like CIS Controls Navigator or CIS-CAT against **18 Controls** and **Implementation Groups (IG1–IG3)**; external validation occurs through pen testing (**Control 18**), insurance underwriters, or regulators accepting CIS evidence of hygiene.

How often should an assessment for **CIS Controls** be performed?

**CIS Controls assessments should be performed continuously for dynamic elements like asset inventory (**Control 1**) and vulnerability management (**Control 7**), with full maturity reviews annually.** IG1–IG3 gap analyses use CIS RAM or Navigator quarterly; automated scans (e.g., weekly for vulnerabilities) and metrics like asset coverage ensure ongoing alignment.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **CIS Controls**?

**Non-compliance with CIS Controls exposes organizations to heightened breach risk, regulatory findings, and operational disruptions, though no direct penalties exist as it is voluntary.** Gaps in core Safeguards enable exploits (e.g., unpatched assets), leading to fines under referencing laws (e.g., NY SHIELD Act up to $500K/violation), litigation, insurance denials, and average breach costs of $4.45M per IBM data.

Can **CIS Controls** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, CIS Controls v8.1 provides official mappings to over 25 frameworks via CIS Controls Navigator.** The 153 Safeguards align with NIST CSF 2.0 (e.g., Govern function), PCI DSS, HIPAA, and others, enabling CIS as an implementation layer—e.g., **Control 15** (Service Provider Management) maps to PCI 12.8.

What is the first step to begin implementing **CIS Controls**?

**The first step is to secure executive sponsorship and conduct a baseline maturity assessment using CIS RAM or Controls Navigator to select an Implementation Group (IG1–IG3).** Prioritize **Control 1** (Inventory and Control of Enterprise Assets) via automated discovery and DHCP logging for foundational visibility.

MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme) vs CIS Controls

Q: What is the first step to begin implementing **MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)**?

**The first step is conducting a provisional self-assessment to classify systems into Levels 1-5 based on impact to national security, social order, and public interests.** Inventory assets, document rationale per GB/T 22240-2020, then file with local PSB within 30 days for Level 2+.

Standards Comparison

MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)

Mandatory

2019

China's mandatory graded cybersecurity protection scheme

CIS Controls

Voluntary

2021

Prioritized cybersecurity framework of 18 defensive controls

Quick Verdict

MLPS 2.0 mandates graded protection for China networks via audits and PSB enforcement, while CIS Controls offer voluntary global best practices for hygiene. Chinese firms comply with MLPS legally; global orgs adopt CIS for resilience.

Cybersecurity

MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)

Multi-Level Protection Scheme 2.0 (MLPS 2.0)

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

Medium

Implementation Time

12-18 months

Key Features

Five-level impact-based system classification
Mandatory under Cybersecurity Law for all networks
Enforced by Public Security Bureaus inspections
Graded technical and governance controls by level
Third-party audits required for Level 2+ systems

Cybersecurity

CIS Controls

CIS Critical Security Controls v8.1

Cost

€€€

Complexity

Medium

Implementation Time

12-18 months

Key Features

18 prioritized controls with 153 actionable safeguards
Implementation Groups IG1-IG3 for scalable adoption
Mappings to NIST CSF, ISO 27001, PCI DSS
Free CIS Benchmarks for secure configurations
Asset inventory and continuous vulnerability management focus

Detailed Analysis

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

MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme) Details

What It Is

MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme 2.0) is China's legally mandated cybersecurity framework under the 2017 Cybersecurity Law (Article 21). It requires network operators to classify systems into five protection levels based on compromise impact to national security, social order, and public interests, implementing graded technical, governance, and physical controls.

Key Components

Core domains: physical security, network protection, data security, access control, monitoring, personnel management.
Standards: GB/T 22239-2019 (basics), GB/T 25070-2019 (technical), GB/T 28448-2019 (evaluation).
Common controls for all levels; extended for cloud, IoT, big data.
Compliance via self-classification, third-party audits (Level 2+), PSB approval.

Why Organizations Use It

Mandatory for all China-based networks; non-compliance risks fines, suspensions.
Enhances resilience, supports market access, aligns with data laws.
Builds regulator trust, reduces breach risks.

Implementation Overview

Phased: inventory/classify, gap analysis, remediate, audit/file with PSBs. Applies to all sizes/industries in China; ongoing re-evaluations required. (178 words)

CIS Controls Details

What It Is

CIS Critical Security Controls v8.1 is a community-driven cybersecurity framework of prioritized, actionable best practices. It reduces attack surfaces and enhances resilience across hybrid environments via 18 controls and 153 safeguards, structured by Implementation Groups (IG1–IG3) for risk-based adoption.

Key Components

18 controls spanning asset management, access control, vulnerability management, monitoring, incident response, and penetration testing.
IG1 (56 safeguards) for basic hygiene; IG2/IG3 for advanced maturity.
Built on real-world attack data; includes free CIS Benchmarks for configurations.
No formal certification; self-assessed compliance with mappings to NIST, ISO 27001.

Why Organizations Use It

Mitigates 85% of common attacks, cuts breach costs, accelerates compliance (NIST, PCI DSS, HIPAA).
Builds trust with insurers, partners; enables efficiency via automation.
Scalable for SMBs to enterprises across industries.

Implementation Overview

Phased roadmap: governance, discovery, foundational controls (IG1), expansion (IG2/IG3), validation. Applies universally; uses tools like Controls Navigator for metrics and audits. (178 words)