Cross-Framework Mapping

AWS Well-Architected Security PillarvsCWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024)

See exactly how AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls map to CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

6
Controls Mapped
19
Gaps Found
8%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar maps to CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024) with 8% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 25 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls identifies 23 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Operations & Monitoring.

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

Control Mappings

Showing 6 of 6 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Identity & Access in Cloud(6 mappings)

AWS-WA-07Multi-factor authentication for cloud3 targets
CWE-287Improper Authentication
CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE-798Use of Hard-coded Credentials
AWS-WA-08Privileged access in cloud environments3 targets
CWE-269Improper Privilege Management
CWE-862Missing Authorization
CWE-863Incorrect Authorization

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 →

What are the key differences between AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024)?

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar has 25 controls across its framework, while CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024) covers 25 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (8% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Operations & Monitoring, where 5 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls have no direct CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024) equivalent.

How many controls map between AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024)?

Of 25 total AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls, 2 map directly to CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024) controls — representing 8% coverage. The remaining 23 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 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024)?

23 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls have no direct equivalent in CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024). The highest concentration of gaps is in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Operations & Monitoring 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 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024)?

The domain with the highest gap count is AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Operations & Monitoring (5 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

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.