Cross-Framework Mapping

BCBS 239vsCISA Zero Trust Maturity Model

See exactly how BCBS 239 controls map to CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

16
Controls Mapped
9
Gaps Found
24%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

BCBS 239 maps to CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model with 24% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 25 BCBS 239 controls identifies 19 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in BCBS 239: Information Security Governance.

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

Control Mappings

Showing 16 of 16 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

BCBS 239: Cybersecurity Controls(7 mappings)

BCBS239-06Network security and segmentation3 targets
CISA-ZT-02Access enforcement and least privilege
CISA-ZT-04Remote access controls
CISA-ZT-05Wireless access restrictions
BCBS239-09Encryption and key management
CISA-ZT-08Cryptographic protection of data
BCBS239-10Secure configuration standards3 targets
CISA-ZT-23Baseline configuration establishment
CISA-ZT-25Security impact analysis
CISA-ZT-26System component inventory

BCBS 239: Incident Management & Reporting(9 mappings)

BCBS239-22Incident response and containment3 targets
CISA-ZT-18Incident response planning and testing
CISA-ZT-20Incident reporting and notification
CISA-ZT-22Lessons learned and improvement
BCBS239-24Customer notification procedures3 targets
CISA-ZT-18Incident response planning and testing
CISA-ZT-20Incident reporting and notification
CISA-ZT-22Lessons learned and improvement
BCBS239-25Post-incident review and improvement3 targets
CISA-ZT-18Incident response planning and testing
CISA-ZT-20Incident reporting and notification
CISA-ZT-22Lessons learned and improvement

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 BCBS 239 and CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model?

BCBS 239 has 25 controls across its framework, while CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model covers 32 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (24% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in BCBS 239: Information Security Governance, where 5 BCBS 239 controls have no direct CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model equivalent.

How many controls map between BCBS 239 and CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model?

Of 25 total BCBS 239 controls, 6 map directly to CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model 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 BCBS 239 to CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model?

19 BCBS 239 controls have no direct equivalent in CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model. The highest concentration of gaps is in BCBS 239: Information Security Governance 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 BCBS 239 and CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model?

The domain with the highest gap count is BCBS 239: Information Security Governance (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.