TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

AWS Well-Architected Security PillarvsCCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)

See exactly how AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls map to CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

11
Controls Mapped
14
Gaps Found
24%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar maps to CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems) with 24% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 25 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls identifies 19 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Infrastructure Security.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 25 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Governance(2 mappings)

AWS-WA-01Shared responsibility model definition
→SEC-5.1Security Policy Definition
AWS-WA-03Cloud risk assessment
→SEC-1.2Risk Assessment Methodology

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Identity & Access in Cloud(3 mappings)

AWS-WA-07Multi-factor authentication for cloud3 targets
→SEC-2.1Telecommand Authentication
→SEC-2.3Data Origin Authentication
→SEC-3.3Authenticated Encryption

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Data Protection in Cloud(5 mappings)

AWS-WA-11Data classification for cloud
→SEC-1.3Threat Categorization
AWS-WA-12Encryption of cloud-stored data4 targets
→SEC-3.1Space Data Link Encryption
→SEC-3.2Cryptographic Algorithm Standards
→SEC-3.3Authenticated Encryption
→SEC-3.4Key Management

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Operations & Monitoring(1 mappings)

AWS-WA-22Incident response in cloud
→SEC-5.4Incident Response for Space Systems

Related Comparisons

Other AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar comparisons

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs Azure Security Benchmark19 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs NIST SP 800-19019 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs CAIQ (CSA)19 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs ISO 2701719 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs MTCS (Singapore)19 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs ISO 2701819 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs NIST SP 800-14519 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs C5 (Germany)19 mappings

Other CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems) comparisons

PAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments vs CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)11 mappingsCSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) vs CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)11 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)11 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)11 mappingsISO 27017 vs CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)10 mappingsNRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Nuclear Facility Cybersecurity vs CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)10 mappingsNIS2 Directive Implementing Acts vs CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)10 mappingsFedRAMP Rev 5 vs CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)10 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)?

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar has 25 controls across its framework, while CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems) covers 21 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (24% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Infrastructure Security, where 5 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls have no direct CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems) equivalent.

How many controls map between AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)?

Of 25 total AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls, 6 map directly to CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems) controls — representing 24% coverage. The remaining 19 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar to CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)?

19 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls have no direct equivalent in CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems). The highest concentration of gaps is in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Infrastructure Security with 5 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)?

The domain with the highest gap count is AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Infrastructure Security (5 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.