TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)vsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)

See exactly how AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls map to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

15
Controls Mapped
10
Gaps Found
28%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) maps to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) with 28% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 25 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls identifies 18 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Incident Response and Recovery.

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

Control Mappings

Showing 15 of 15 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Security Management and Governance(3 mappings)

AWWA-1.1Security Policy and Governance3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-4.1Types of Incidents and Level of Support
→RFC2350-4.2Cooperation and Disclosure

Access Control and Identity Management(1 mappings)

AWWA-2.2Authentication Mechanisms
→RFC2350-4.3Communication and Authentication

Network and Communications Security(2 mappings)

AWWA-3.2Remote Access Security
→RFC2350-2.3Public Keys and Encryption
AWWA-3.4Encryption and Data Protection
→RFC2350-2.3Public Keys and Encryption

Incident Response and Recovery(9 mappings)

AWWA-5.1Incident Response Plan3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-5.2Incident Coordination
→RFC2350-5.3Incident Resolution
AWWA-5.5Exercises and Testing3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-5.2Incident Coordination
→RFC2350-5.3Incident Resolution
ICS-IR-2ICS-specific forensics3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-5.2Incident Coordination
→RFC2350-5.3Incident Resolution

Related Comparisons

Other AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) comparisons

AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs CISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines18 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs CSA CCM v418 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs FAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation18 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs ASD Information Security Manual (ISM)18 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs South Korea ISMS-P18 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs NIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security17 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange17 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs Azure Security Benchmark16 mappings

Other RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) comparisons

ISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)8 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)8 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)8 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsCAIQ (CSA) vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsCISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsIRS Publication 1075 — Tax Information Security Guidelines vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 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 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) has 25 controls across its framework, while RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) covers 18 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (28% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Incident Response and Recovery, where 6 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls have no direct RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) equivalent.

How many controls map between AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

Of 25 total AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls, 7 map directly to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls — representing 28% coverage. The remaining 18 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 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

18 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls have no direct equivalent in RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). The highest concentration of gaps is in Incident Response and Recovery with 6 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 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Incident Response and Recovery (6 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.