EvidenceSheet
APRA CPS 234 · Information security capability (paras 15 to 17)

CPS 234 para 16 Assess the security capability of related and third parties

Where a related party or third party manages any of the entity's information assets, the entity assesses that party's information security capability, to a depth that matches the possible consequences of an incident touching those assets. A footnote makes this apply to every such party, not only those supplying outsourced material business activities covered by CPS 231 or SPS 231.

Source: APRA CPS 234, CPS 234 para 16. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open APRA CPS 234 in the compliance library.

Applies to APRA-regulated entities.

5
artefacts
0
held by a system
3
at each review
hard
to go live
Vendor register / contract repository
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Completed security due-diligence questionnaires and assessment reports per party · Vendor register / contract repository
  • Independent assurance reports reviewed (for example SOC 2 Type 2, ISO/IEC 27001 certificate and statement of applicability) · Vendor register / contract repository
  • Records of follow-up on weaknesses found in a party's capability · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Inventory of related and third parties that manage information assets, with tiering by consequence · Vendor register / contract repository
  • Assessment methodology showing deeper review for higher-consequence parties · Vendor register / contract repository

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

CPS 234 para 15 Maintain an information security capability · CPS 234 para 17 Keep capability current as threats and assets change