TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Belgium CyberFundamentalsvsIAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)

See exactly how Belgium CyberFundamentals controls map to IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

17
Controls Mapped
15
Gaps Found
41%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Belgium CyberFundamentals maps to IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) with 41% coverage across 13 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 32 Belgium CyberFundamentals controls identifies 19 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(3 mappings)

BE-CF-01Account management and provisioning
→NSS17-4.1Access Control
BE-CF-02Access enforcement and least privilege
→NSS17-4.1Access Control
BE-CF-06Identity proofing and verification
→NSS17-4.1Access Control

Belgium CyberFundamentals: Risk Assessment & Management(8 mappings)

BE-CF-13Risk assessment procedures2 targets
→NSS17-2.1Threat Assessment
→NSS17-2.2Vulnerability Assessment
BE-CF-15Security categorization2 targets
→NSS17-2.1Threat Assessment
→NSS17-2.2Vulnerability Assessment
BE-CF-16Threat intelligence integration
→NSS17-6.3Information Sharing
BE-CF-17Continuous monitoring strategy3 targets
→NSS17-2.1Threat Assessment
→NSS17-2.2Vulnerability Assessment
→NSS17-5.1Continuous Monitoring

Belgium CyberFundamentals: Incident Response(3 mappings)

BE-CF-20Incident reporting and notification
→NSS17-5.2Incident Response
BE-CF-21Forensic analysis capabilities
→NSS17-5.2Incident Response
BE-CF-22Lessons learned and improvement
→NSS17-5.2Incident Response

Belgium CyberFundamentals: Configuration Management(3 mappings)

BE-CF-23Baseline configuration establishment
→NSS17-4.4Configuration Management
BE-CF-25Security impact analysis
→NSS17-4.4Configuration Management
BE-CF-26System component inventory
→NSS17-4.4Configuration Management

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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) comparisons

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)11 mappingsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)10 mappingsCISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)10 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)10 mappingsFedRAMP Rev 5 vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)10 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)10 mappingsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)9 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)9 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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?

Belgium CyberFundamentals has 32 controls across its framework, while IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) covers 22 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 13 overlapping controls (41% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Belgium CyberFundamentals: System & Communications Protection, where 6 Belgium CyberFundamentals controls have no direct IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) equivalent.

How many controls map between Belgium CyberFundamentals and IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?

Of 32 total Belgium CyberFundamentals controls, 13 map directly to IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) controls — representing 41% 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 Belgium CyberFundamentals to IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?

19 Belgium CyberFundamentals controls have no direct equivalent in IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1). The highest concentration of gaps is in Belgium CyberFundamentals: System & Communications Protection 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 Belgium CyberFundamentals and IAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?

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