Description

A focused course, tailored for you

Security Engineering Evidence for APRA CPS 234 Audits

Turn the controls you already run into audit-ready evidence packages an APRA examiner accepts without a follow-up request.

The CPS 234 triennial review lands and the first follow-up request is always the same thing: evidence that your technical controls are operating as described in your framework. The controls exist. The patch cycles run. The SIEM alerts fire. But the artefact trail that satisfies an APRA examiner's Paragraph 36 request is a different deliverable from the security work itself, and most security engineers only discover the gap when the examiner sends a second request.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

APRA CPS 234 mandatory compliance for Australian deposit-taking institutions and insurers places the evidence burden squarely on the security function, not just the GRC team. An examiner reviewing an ADI will test whether security controls are implemented, whether they are operating effectively, and whether the organisation can demonstrate that effectiveness with dated, attributed artefacts. A Security Engineer at a major financial institution runs the controls daily: vulnerability scans, patch attestation, firewall rule reviews, privileged access certifications, penetration test remediation tracking. The problem is that each of these produces raw output, not audit evidence. A Nessus scan result is not a patch attestation record. A Palo Alto change log is not a firewall rule-review sign-off. An AD pull is not an access certification. The translation from technical output to auditable artefact requires a different discipline, and it is a discipline that exam cycles penalise when missing. This course teaches that translation.

What you walk away with

Map every technical control you operate to the CPS 234 paragraph it evidences, so there is no ambiguity when an examiner references a specific requirement.
Build a patch attestation record format that distinguishes critical, high, and deferred-with-justification findings in a form an APRA examiner can follow without a briefing.
Structure firewall rule-review sign-off chains that satisfy the change-management and access-control requirements in a single artefact.
Produce privileged access certification records from existing identity tooling that meet the quarterly review cadence CPS 234 requires.
Turn penetration test findings and remediation tracking into a durable evidence package rather than a point-in-time PDF that ages out between triennial reviews.
Deliver a self-contained evidence folder to your compliance team before each review cycle so the second-request loop stops.

The 12 modules

Module 1. What APRA Examiners Actually Look For Under CPS 234

Walk through the specific paragraphs of CPS 234 that generate evidence requests: Paragraphs 15 to 19 (information security capability), 28 to 36 (control testing and assurance), and 37 to 41 (notification obligations). Map each paragraph to the technical artefact type it requires. By the end of this module you have a paragraph-to-artefact matrix for your specific control set, not a generic framework summary.

Module 2. The Difference Between Technical Output and Audit Evidence

Scan output, change logs, and alert records are raw data. Audit evidence is raw data with a date, an owner, a scope statement, and a disposition. This module works through the transformation required for each common security tool output: SIEM exports, vulnerability scanner reports, firewall change logs, and endpoint detection alerts. The output is a conversion template you apply to your existing tooling rather than a new process.

Module 3. Patch Attestation Records That Survive a Paragraph 36 Review

CPS 234 Paragraph 36 requires you to demonstrate that controls are operating effectively, not just that they are configured. For patch management this means distinguishing between applied, deferred-with-justification, and accepted-risk findings in a structured record. This module builds a patch attestation template that records the scan date, the critical and high finding counts, the disposition of each deferred item with the approving authority, and the residual-risk acknowledgement.

Module 4. Firewall Rule Reviews as a Compliance Artefact

A firewall rule review is a recurring security engineering task. Turning it into a CPS 234-compliant artefact requires adding a scope statement (which rule sets were reviewed), a methodology note (automated analysis plus manual exception review), the reviewer identity and date, the disposition of flagged rules, and a sign-off from the relevant control owner. This module provides the review sign-off template and walks through the specific fields that distinguish a security review from an audit-ready control-testing record.

Module 5. Privileged Access Certification for CPS 234 Paragraph 25

CPS 234 and the associated CPG 234 guidance require periodic review of privileged access. Most financial institutions run a quarterly PAM certification cycle. The gap is between the identity tool export and the certification record that demonstrates the review was completed, exceptions were approved, and orphaned accounts were actioned. This module builds the certification record format from existing AD or PAM tool output and maps it to the frequency and scope requirements APRA expects.

Module 6. Penetration Test Evidence Packages That Age Well

A penetration test report is a point-in-time document. Between triennial APRA reviews, the value of that report depends on the remediation tracking that follows it. This module builds the evidence package structure: scope and methodology, the finding register with severity ratings, remediation tickets with closure dates, re-test confirmation where applicable, and residual-risk acceptance for open findings. The package answers 'what did you find and what did you do about it' across a multi-year review window.

Module 7. Third-Party and Supply Chain Control Evidence Under CPS 234

CPS 234 extends the evidence obligation to material service providers. For a security engineer this means maintaining evidence that third-party controls meet your organisation's minimum security requirements, not just that contracts reference security obligations. This module covers the vendor assessment artefact, the annual attestation request process, and the escalation record for vendors who fail to respond. The focus is on the artefacts that satisfy Paragraphs 20 to 23, not on the vendor management process itself.

Module 8. SIEM and Log Management Evidence for Detection Capability

APRA expects ADIs to demonstrate detection capability, not just prevention capability. The evidence artefact for detection is not an alert count. It is a documented log coverage statement (which systems log to the SIEM, at what fidelity), a use-case register (which threat scenarios are actively monitored), and a false-positive management record that shows the detection capability is tuned rather than noisy. This module builds those three artefacts from existing SIEM configuration and operational data.

Module 9. Incident Response Evidence: What the Examiner Reads After a Notification

CPS 234 Paragraphs 37 to 41 cover notification obligations to APRA after a material information security incident. The evidence package an examiner reviews after a notification includes the incident timeline, the containment and eradication actions with dates, the root-cause determination, the control gap identified, and the remediation plan. This module builds the post-incident evidence template that satisfies both the notification requirement and the subsequent supervisory review, drawing on the ISO 27035 incident management structure aligned to CPS 234 language.

Module 10. The Control Testing Calendar: Running CPS 234 Assurance Year-Round

APRA triennial reviews assess the full period since the last review, not just the current state. An evidence folder covering only the last 90 days does not satisfy a three-year review. This module builds a control testing calendar that distributes the evidence workload across the cycle. Each control category gets a testing frequency (annual, quarterly, monthly), an artefact type, and an owner. The output is proof that assurance ran continuously, not in a pre-review sprint.

Module 11. Packaging the Evidence Folder for the Compliance Team

The compliance team presenting to APRA needs to navigate the evidence folder without a briefing from the security engineering team. This module covers the folder structure, the index document mapping each CPS 234 paragraph to its artefact, the version-control convention that makes dated files findable, and the handoff protocol confirming the compliance team can use each artefact without clarification. The goal: the second-request loop stops because the first submission is complete.

Module 12. Building the Playbook Into Your Regular Security Engineering Work

The last module integrates the evidence layer into the recurring security engineering workflow so it does not require a separate effort before each review. Each major control type gets an updated runbook that includes an evidence generation step: the scan runs and the attestation record is produced in the same workflow, not as a later addition. The outcome is an operating rhythm where the evidence folder builds itself over the review cycle rather than being assembled under time pressure.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

Patch attestation gap: the Nessus scan ran but the record showing deferred findings were approved with documented justification does not exist yet. Modules 3 and 10 close that.

Firewall review paper trail missing: the rule review happened but the sign-off chain is an email thread, not a structured artefact. Module 4 replaces the email thread with a compliant record.

Penetration test evidence ageing: the pen test report is two years old and the remediation tracking lives in Jira tickets that the compliance team cannot read without a briefing. Module 6 packages the durable evidence set.

Pre-review sprint pressure: the team spends six weeks before the triennial review assembling evidence that should have been generated continuously. Modules 10 through 12 redistribute that effort across the review cycle.

What you get with this course

12 written modules covering the full CPS 234 evidence lifecycle for security engineers
Downloadable artefact templates: patch attestation record, firewall review sign-off, PAM certification record, penetration test evidence package, post-incident evidence template, control testing calendar
Paragraph-to-artefact matrix mapping each CPS 234 requirement to the specific technical output that evidences it
Hand-built implementation playbook tailored to your role and control environment, delivered alongside course access

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.

Before and after

Before

The APRA examiner sends a second-request letter because the initial evidence submission covered the current state but not the operating effectiveness over the review period. The security engineering team spends two weeks pulling records from scanning tools, change management systems, and email threads to reconstruct the evidence trail.

After

The compliance team submits the evidence folder with a complete paragraph-to-artefact index. The security engineering contribution is a structured set of dated artefacts generated as part of the regular control-testing workflow. No second request.

What happens if you do not address this

APRA's supervisory intensity for ADIs under CPS 234 has increased steadily since the operational resilience information paper. A triennial review that generates a material finding on evidence quality can trigger a directed review cycle on a shorter interval, increasing the compliance burden on the security function for the following three to five years.

Who it is for

Security Engineers and Senior Security Engineers at Australian financial institutions (ADIs, insurers, superannuation funds) who own the technical implementation of controls under CPS 234 and related APRA prudential standards. You run the tools, write the policies, scope the pen tests, and track remediation. You are not the GRC function but you feed it, and you feel the friction every time the compliance team asks you to re-explain what the scan output means in audit terms.

Who this is NOT for. GRC analysts who do not own technical controls. Security architects whose work sits upstream of the evidence layer. Teams at non-regulated entities where APRA standards do not apply.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Each module is designed to be completed in one focused sitting of 45 to 60 minutes. The full course is typically completed across two to three weeks alongside normal security engineering work.

Why $199 is the right number

APRA's own CPG 234 guidance document covers the regulatory intent but not the evidence artefact design. General ISO 27001 lead-implementer courses address the control framework but are not calibrated to APRA examination practice. Internal compliance training at most ADIs covers notification obligations but not the technical evidence layer that security engineers own. This course fills the specific gap between running controls and producing audit-ready artefacts in an APRA-regulated environment.

FAQ

Does this course apply to insurance and superannuation fund security engineers, or only banking?

CPS 234 applies to all APRA-regulated entities: authorised deposit-taking institutions, general and life insurers, and RSE licensees. The evidence requirements and examination approach are consistent across entity types. The module content is written with the full scope of regulated entities in mind.

Our organisation uses a GRC tool to manage control evidence. Does this course still apply?

Yes. The course teaches the evidence design principles and artefact structures that feed any GRC tool correctly. A GRC tool that holds the wrong artefact type or a gap in the evidence period is not a CPS 234 solution. The course covers what needs to go into the tool and why.

How does the hand-built implementation playbook differ from the course modules?

The course modules teach the general principles and provide templates. The implementation playbook is built for your specific control environment: the tools you use, the review frequencies your organisation operates, and the specific CPS 234 paragraphs where your current evidence trail has gaps. It is the working document you hand to a new team member, not a training resource.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.