TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Belgium CyberFundamentalsvsCCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)

See exactly how Belgium CyberFundamentals 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.

17
Controls Mapped
15
Gaps Found
34%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Belgium CyberFundamentals maps to CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems) with 34% coverage across 11 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 32 Belgium CyberFundamentals controls identifies 21 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Belgium CyberFundamentals: System & Communications Protection.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 32 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Belgium CyberFundamentals: Access Control & Identity(6 mappings)

BE-CF-01Account management and provisioning
→SEC-2.2Ground Station Access Control
BE-CF-02Access enforcement and least privilege
→SEC-2.2Ground Station Access Control
BE-CF-03Multi-factor authentication requirements3 targets
→SEC-2.1Telecommand Authentication
→SEC-2.3Data Origin Authentication
→SEC-3.3Authenticated Encryption
BE-CF-06Identity proofing and verification
→SEC-2.2Ground Station Access Control

Belgium CyberFundamentals: System & Communications Protection(4 mappings)

BE-CF-08Cryptographic protection of data4 targets
→SEC-3.1Space Data Link Encryption
→SEC-3.2Cryptographic Algorithm Standards
→SEC-3.3Authenticated Encryption
→SEC-3.4Key Management

Belgium CyberFundamentals: Risk Assessment & Management(4 mappings)

BE-CF-13Risk assessment procedures
→SEC-1.2Risk Assessment Methodology
BE-CF-15Security categorization2 targets
→SEC-1.2Risk Assessment Methodology
→SEC-1.3Threat Categorization
BE-CF-17Continuous monitoring strategy
→SEC-1.2Risk Assessment Methodology

Belgium CyberFundamentals: Incident Response(3 mappings)

BE-CF-20Incident reporting and notification
→SEC-5.4Incident Response for Space Systems
BE-CF-21Forensic analysis capabilities
→SEC-5.4Incident Response for Space Systems
BE-CF-22Lessons learned and improvement
→SEC-5.4Incident Response for Space Systems

Related Comparisons

Other Belgium CyberFundamentals comparisons

Belgium CyberFundamentals vs ANSSI Cybersecurity Framework20 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs DoD Zero Trust Reference Architecture20 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs NIST SP 800-17220 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs BSI IT-Grundschutz20 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs Saudi NCA ECC20 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs FISMA20 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs Cyber Essentials Plus20 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs Spain ENS20 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 Belgium CyberFundamentals and CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)?

Belgium CyberFundamentals has 32 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 11 overlapping controls (34% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Belgium CyberFundamentals: System & Communications Protection, where 5 Belgium CyberFundamentals controls have no direct CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems) equivalent.

How many controls map between Belgium CyberFundamentals and CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)?

Of 32 total Belgium CyberFundamentals controls, 11 map directly to CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems) controls — representing 34% coverage. The remaining 21 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

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

21 Belgium CyberFundamentals 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 Belgium CyberFundamentals: System & Communications Protection 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 Belgium CyberFundamentals and CCSDS 350.0-G-3 — Space Communications Security (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Belgium CyberFundamentals: System & Communications Protection (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.