Banking GRC your examiners can follow.
Examiners expect a risk-based program, documented third-party oversight, and evidence that your controls work. TruOps keeps all three current.
Coverage by obligation
Requirements met with current evidence
Where obligations overlap
Share of requirements answered by the same evidence
Darker means more requirements share the same evidence.
Open exam findings
Burn-down by quarter, against the target
TruOps helps banks run information security, cyber maturity, and third-party risk programs against GLBA, FFIEC guidance, NIST CSF 2.0, NYDFS Part 500, SOX, and DORA for EU operations, with pre-filled assessments, continuous control monitoring, and vendor oversight sized to each vendor's risk.
- You need evidence that's ready for the next exam
- Core processors and fintech partners need deeper oversight than the rest of your vendors
- The board wants cyber maturity tracked over time
The rules that apply
Most banks answer to several overlapping regimes at once. The common ones:
| Regime | What it asks for |
|---|---|
| GLBA and interagency guidelines | An information security program to safeguard customer information |
| FFIEC guidance | Examination expectations for IT and cybersecurity risk management |
| Interagency third-party guidance (2023) | Risk-based oversight across the third-party relationship lifecycle |
| NIST CSF 2.0 / CRI Profile | Common frameworks for measuring cyber maturity |
| SOX Section 404 | IT general controls for public bank holding companies |
| DORA (EU) | Operational resilience for EU banking operations |
Which ones apply depends on your size, location, and activities. TruOps runs whichever you need in one place and shows where they overlap.
The challenge
FFIEC retired the CAT in 2025. Examiners now point to NIST CSF 2.0, the CRI Profile, CISA CPGs, and CIS. Most banks still have a CAT spreadsheet, a one-time CRI workshop, and a board deck that can't be regenerated.
- You can't track maturity over time because the last score came from a one-off workshop.
- Your core, card, and digital banking providers get the same SIG as a marketing tool, or a deep review that never gets updated.
- When the exam team asks where you stood on a specific date, including vendor status, the answer has to be rebuilt from email.
What you're probably using today
Most banks already run an enterprise GRC tool, the old FFIEC CAT or a CRI workbook, a TPRM module, and a board deck built by hand. TruOps brings those pieces together.
| What you use now | Where it falls short | With TruOps |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise GRC suites | They can model almost anything, but that flexibility usually runs through implementation partners and admins, so every change turns into a project. | AI reads your existing documents and sets up the program. Your first assessment opens pre-filled with sources, and you make changes by asking in plain language. |
| Retired FFIEC CAT spreadsheets or a one-time CRI workshop | You can't track maturity over time. Examiners now point to CSF 2.0 and the CRI Profile, including Extend for third-party risk. | Score CSF or CRI by function and category with evidence attached, and track the trend. Third-party work lives in the same place. |
| TPRM in a separate portal (ProcessUnity, Prevalent, or the GRC module) | Critical vendors get reviewed, but the exam team can't see residual risk and concentration together. | Tiering, due diligence, findings, and the register all live together. |
| A board cyber pack in PowerPoint | Numbers are typed in by hand, directors can't click into anything, and next quarter starts from a blank deck. | Risk in ratings or dollars, maturity by function, and open findings, all generated from live data. |
What teams in this industry work on
Here are the programs banks run day to day, and what good looks like when an examiner, customer, or board asks.
| Use case | What good looks like |
|---|---|
| A replacement for the retired FFIEC CAT | Current and target maturity on NIST CSF 2.0 or the CRI Profile, tracked over time, with evidence attached to each category |
| Core and fintech oversight | Due diligence across the lifecycle for core processors, card, digital banking, and fintech partners, sized to their inherent risk |
| Board cyber pack | Risk in ratings or dollars, maturity by function, and open findings, from live data directors can click into |
| Point-in-time exam history | Where you stood on the exam date, including vendor status, ready without digging through email |
What makes it hard
- Cyber maturity has to be measured and tracked over time.
- Critical vendors, from core processors to fintech partners, need deeper oversight than smaller suppliers.
- Board reporting has to turn control status into risk the board can act on.
How TruOps helps
- Score maturity on NIST CSF 2.0 or the CRI Profile by function and category, and track the trend.
- Tier third parties and manage the full lifecycle: due diligence, monitoring, reassessment, and exit.
- Show the board risk as ratings, heat maps, or dollars, with every number traceable.
How TruOps helps
- One platform
- Compliance, risk, vendor, and customer assessments share the same questionnaires, evidence, and findings.
- Pre-filled with sources
- Assessments open with answers pulled from your documents and tools, each with a source.
- Vendor portal
- Third parties answer, upload proof, and fix findings in their own portal.
- Exam-ready history
- Results saved as of their date, with every decision in one audit log.
Questions
Which compliance requirements apply to banks?
Common ones include GLBA and interagency guidelines, FFIEC guidance, Interagency third-party guidance (2023), NIST CSF 2.0 / CRI Profile, SOX Section 404, DORA (EU). Which ones apply depends on your size, location, and activities. TruOps runs any of them in one place and shows where they overlap.
Does TruOps replace the FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool?
The FFIEC retired its Cybersecurity Assessment Tool in 2025 and pointed institutions to frameworks like NIST CSF 2.0 and the CRI Profile. TruOps runs those assessments and scores maturity.
Can TruOps support third-party risk management for banks?
Yes, across the full lifecycle: tiering, due diligence questionnaires, evidence review, findings, reassessment, and concentration risk.
What replaced the FFIEC CAT?
The FFIEC retired the Cybersecurity Assessment Tool in 2025 and pointed institutions to NIST CSF 2.0, the CRI Profile, CISA CPGs, and CIS Controls. TruOps runs CSF and similar maturity assessments and tracks them over time.
Do we have to rip out the tools we already use?
No. TruOps connects to your cloud, identity, endpoint, vulnerability, and code tools. Spreadsheets, prior reports, and policies upload into the Data Room. If you're moving from a SOC 2 automation tool or an enterprise GRC suite, you bring over your frameworks, evidence, vendors, and risks.
Can we bring our existing assessments, control lists, and vendor files?
Yes. Upload workbooks, reports, policies, and vendor exports. TruOps turns them into structured questionnaires, controls, and risks, each linked to the file it came from, for you to review.
Related
Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover, with maturity scoring.
→FrameworksSOX ITGCIT general controls for financial reporting.
→FrameworksDORAEU digital operational resilience for financial entities.
→Use casesBoard reportingAnswers leadership can act on, with sources.
→IndustriesCredit unionsNCUA expectations and vendor oversight, built for credit union teams.
→IndustriesFinancial servicesOverlapping regulations, heavy vendor oversight, and examiners who want proof.
→See it run on your own data.
Book 30 minutes with a GRC specialist. Bring a real document, like a SOC 2 report, risk register, or vendor list (redacted is fine), and we'll show TruOps AI working on it.