SOX
U.S. federal act mandating financial reporting controls
MAS TRM
Singapore guidelines for technology risk management in finance.
Quick Verdict
SOX mandates financial reporting integrity and ICFR for US public firms via audits and certifications, while MAS TRM provides technology risk guidelines for Singapore FIs emphasizing cyber resilience and proportional controls. Companies adopt SOX for legal compliance; MAS TRM for supervisory alignment.
SOX
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Key Features
- Mandates CEO/CFO certification of financial accuracy
- Requires ICFR management assessment and auditor attestation
- Establishes PCAOB for audit oversight and standards
- Enforces auditor independence and partner rotation
- Imposes criminal penalties for false certifications
MAS TRM
MAS Technology Risk Management Guidelines
Key Features
- Board and senior management accountability
- Proportional risk-based implementation
- Third-party risk management integration
- Defence-in-depth cyber resilience
- Annual penetration testing for internet systems
Detailed Analysis
A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.
SOX Details
What It Is
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) is a U.S. federal statute enacted post-Enron scandals. It mandates corporate accountability, accurate financial disclosures, and robust internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) for public companies. Employs a risk-based approach via top-down scoping aligned with COSO framework.
Key Components
- **Title IPCAOB creation for audit oversight, inspections, standards.
- **Title IIAuditor independence, non-audit service bans, partner rotation.
- **Sections 302/906CEO/CFO certifications with civil/criminal penalties.
- **Section 404ICFR assessment (404a), auditor attestation (404b).
- Governance (audit committees), whistleblower protections, document retention. Compliance through annual reporting, no formal certification but SEC/PCAOB enforcement.
Why Organizations Use It
Mandatory for U.S. public issuers; enhances investor trust, reduces restatements/fraud. Strategic benefits: governance maturity, operational efficiency, M&A readiness, lower capital costs despite high compliance expenses.
Implementation Overview
Top-down risk assessment, control design/documentation, testing (design/operating effectiveness), remediation, continuous monitoring. Applies to public companies/auditors; scaled for filer types (e.g., EGC exemptions). Annual ICFR reports in 10-K, auditor involvement for larger filers.
MAS TRM Details
What It Is
MAS Technology Risk Management (TRM) Guidelines (January 2021) are supervisory guidelines issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) for financial institutions (FIs). They provide principles-based guidance on managing technology and cyber risks, emphasizing governance, controls, and resilience across the IT lifecycle. The approach is risk-based and proportional, tailored to an FI's complexity, services, and technologies.
Key Components
- 15 sections covering governance, risk frameworks, secure development, IT service management, resilience, access controls, cryptography, data security, cyber operations, assessments, and audit.
- Synthesised into 12 core principles like board accountability, asset inventory, third-party oversight, and defence-in-depth.
- No fixed controls; focuses on outcomes for CIA triad (confidentiality, integrity, availability).
- Compliance via supervisory review, not formal certification.
Why Organizations Use It
- Meets MAS supervisory expectations to avoid fines/enforcement.
- Enhances cyber resilience, operational stability, and customer trust.
- Supports digital transformation while mitigating ecosystem risks.
- Builds board oversight and measurable risk metrics.
Implementation Overview
- Phased: governance setup, asset inventory, control design, testing, monitoring.
- Applies to all MAS-supervised FIs; proportional by size/risk.
- Involves policies, training, audits; 12-24 months typical for maturity.
Key Differences
| Aspect | SOX | MAS TRM |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Financial reporting, ICFR, governance, certifications | Technology/cyber risks, IT operations, resilience, third-parties |
| Industry | US public companies, global issuers | Singapore financial institutions (banks, insurers, fintechs) |
| Nature | Mandatory federal statute, SEC/PCAOB enforced | Supervisory guidelines, proportional implementation |
| Testing | Annual ICFR audits, control testing, PCAOB standards | VA/PT annual for internet systems, DR tests, cyber exercises |
| Penalties | Criminal fines/imprisonment, civil liabilities, restatements | Supervisory fines, license conditions, enforcement actions |
Scope
Industry
Nature
Testing
Penalties
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about SOX and MAS TRM
SOX FAQ
MAS TRM FAQ
You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

Practical Implementation Blueprint for Regulation S-K Item 106: Cybersecurity Governance and Risk Management Disclosures in 10-Ks
Step-by-step guide for Item 106 cybersecurity disclosures in 10-Ks: risk management, board oversight, Inline XBRL templates (Dec 2024 compliance). Templates for

Beyond the Boardroom: 5 Ways Modern Compliance Software Elevates Every Department
Discover 5 ways modern compliance software boosts HR, IT, finance & more: automate risks, enhance efficiency, ensure data integrity, stay audit-ready. Elevate y

CIS Controls v8.1 IG1 Ransomware-Resilience Sprint: A 30-60-90 Day Action Plan (With Evidence Checklist)
Tactical CIS Controls v8.1 IG1 playbook for ransomware resilience. 30-60-90 day sprint with tool-agnostic tasks, ownership & evidence checklists to prove progre
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 13485 vs EU AI Act
ISO 13485 vs EU AI Act: Compare med device QMS rigor with AI risk rules. Uncover synergies, gaps & compliance roadmap for AI-driven healthcare innovation. Comply now!
J-SOX vs FSSC 22000
Explore J-SOX vs FSSC 22000: Japan's ICFR rules vs global food safety certification. Uncover key differences, compliance strategies & risk insights for executives. Master both now!
ENERGY STAR vs ISO 27018
Discover ENERGY STAR vs ISO 27018: EPA energy efficiency leader meets cloud PII privacy code. Compare certs, controls, impacts for compliance edge. Unlock insights now!