Security Compliance Framework

Problems it addresses

Security compliance work often fails because requirements are scattered and evidence is weak: MLPS 2.0 levels are unclear, assessment deductions are hard to trace, data-law obligations remain abstract, and data classification lacks executable standards. For internet, finance, and cross-border teams, the core problem is mapping regulations to engineering controls across physical, network, host, application, and data security.

How it works

• MLPS 2.0: determines the protection level, breaks controls into physical, network, host, application, and data security, and flags common deductions such as weak boundary access control, stale host patches, SQL injection, and unvalidated backups.
• Three-law compliance: organizes requirements from the Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, and Personal Information Protection Law, including log retention, incident response, data classification, minimal collection, sensitive-data protection, and DPIA.
• Data classification: classifies data by customer, operations, finance, employee, and supplier attributes, then provides public, internal, sensitive, confidential, and top-secret examples with protection requirements.
• Compliance readiness: guides self-assessment, gap analysis, remediation planning, evidence collection, and ongoing operations; for offshore listings or foreign-invested contexts, it adds SOX 404 ITGC topics such as access control, change management, and segregation of duties.

Boundaries

It helps with gap analysis, remediation planning, and audit evidence organization. It does not replace legal counsel, formal assessment agencies, or penetration testing. Passing MLPS or meeting three-law requirements is a baseline, not proof that security operations are mature.