AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)vsISO 27799
See exactly how AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls map to ISO 27799. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) maps to ISO 27799 with 22% coverage across 8 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 37 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls identifies 29 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in System Security and Operations.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 37 controls analysed | 692 frameworks | 306K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 18 of 18 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 306K+ mappings across 692 frameworks.
Security Management and Governance(3 mappings)
Access Control and Identity Management(7 mappings)
Network and Communications Security(7 mappings)
System Security and Operations(1 mappings)
A AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) to ISO 27799 crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO 27799 controls your existing AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 22% in the header counts how many AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ISO 27799 controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) comparisons
Other ISO 27799 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 692 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 692 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (306K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) and ISO 27799?
AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) has 37 controls across its framework, while ISO 27799 covers 46 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (22% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in System Security and Operations, where 3 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls have no direct ISO 27799 equivalent.
How many controls map between AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) and ISO 27799?
Of 37 total AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls, 8 map directly to ISO 27799 controls, representing 22% coverage. The remaining 29 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) to ISO 27799?
29 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27799. The highest concentration of gaps is in System Security and Operations with 3 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 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) and ISO 27799?
The domain with the highest gap count is System Security and Operations (3 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
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.