What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CPS 234 para 23 Detect and respond to incidents promptly?

Security monitoring architecture (SIEM, EDR, logging coverage) with scope across critical assets; Alert triage and escalation procedures with response time targets; Security operations centre or managed detection service contract and performance reports; Incident tickets showing detection-to-containment times; Metrics on mean time to detect and respond reported to management.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CPS 234 para 23?

Logging not enabled or not collected for critical systems or third-party services

APRA CPS 234 · Incident management (paras 23 to 26)

`CPS 234 para 23` Detect and respond to incidents promptly

The entity has robust means of spotting information security incidents and responding to them in good time.

Source: APRA CPS 234, CPS 234 para 23. 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.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

Ticketing / ITSM

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

Incident tickets showing detection-to-containment times · Ticketing / ITSM
Metrics on mean time to detect and respond reported to management · Policy repository / GRC workspace

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Security operations centre or managed detection service contract and performance reports · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Security monitoring architecture (SIEM, EDR, logging coverage) with scope across critical assets · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Alert triage and escalation procedures with response time targets · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 5 artefacts that already live in a system (Ticketing / ITSM); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Logging not enabled or not collected for critical systems or third-party services
Alerts generated but no one assigned to triage them out of hours
No measurement of how quickly incidents are found and handled

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 22 Evaluate the design of third-party controls · CPS 234 para 24 Maintain information security response plans