TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and DefencevsSigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification

See exactly how AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls map to Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

2
Controls Mapped
36
Gaps Found
5%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence maps to Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification with 5% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 38 AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls identifies 36 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Operation (Clause 8).

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 38 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 2 of 2 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Operation (Clause 8)(2 mappings)

AS9100D-8.4Control of Externally Provided Processes, Products, and Services
→SIGSTORE-VER-2Supply Chain Attestation
ISO27003-8.1Operational Planning and Control
→SIGSTORE-VER-2Supply Chain Attestation

Related Comparisons

Other AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence comparisons

AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs AS9100D — Aerospace Quality Management System16 mappingsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs ISO/IEC 27003:201716 mappingsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs PIC/S Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products15 mappingsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements14 mappingsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food14 mappingsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs 3GPP Security Architecture (TS 33.501 — 5G Security)13 mappingsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs UK Telecommunications (Security) Act 202113 mappingsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts13 mappings

Other Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification comparisons

UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification3 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security vs Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification3 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification3 mappingsCSA CCM v4 vs Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification3 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification3 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification3 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework 1.0 vs Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification3 mappingsPAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments vs Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification3 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • ✓ Unlimited full-text search
  • ✓ Framework self-assessment
  • ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence and Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification?

AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence has 38 controls across its framework, while Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification covers 13 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (5% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Operation (Clause 8), where 12 AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls have no direct Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification equivalent.

How many controls map between AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence and Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification?

Of 38 total AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls, 2 map directly to Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification controls — representing 5% coverage. The remaining 36 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence to Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification?

36 AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls have no direct equivalent in Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification. The highest concentration of gaps is in Operation (Clause 8) with 12 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence and Sigstore — Software Artifact Signing and Verification?

The domain with the highest gap count is Operation (Clause 8) (12 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.