TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Belgium CyberFundamentalsvsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

See exactly how Belgium CyberFundamentals controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

46
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
100%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Belgium CyberFundamentals maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 100% coverage across 44 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 44 Belgium CyberFundamentals controls identifies 0 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Belgium CyberFundamentals: Scoping and Regulatory Alignment.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 44 controls analysed | 719 frameworks | 428K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 46 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 428K+ mappings across 719 frameworks.

Belgium CyberFundamentals: Protect(19 mappings)

BE-CF-01Account management and provisioning
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed
BE-CF-02Access enforcement and least privilege
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed
BE-CF-03Multi-factor authentication requirements
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03Users, services, and hardware are authenticated
BE-CF-04Remote access controls
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed
BE-CF-05Wireless access restrictions
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed
BE-CF-06Identity proofing and verification
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions
BE-CF-07Boundary protection and segmentation
→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-01Networks and environments are protected from unauthorized access
BE-CF-08Cryptographic protection of data2 targets
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-02The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected
BE-CF-09Denial-of-service protection
→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-04Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained
BE-CF-10Transmission confidentiality and integrity
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-02The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected
BE-CF-11Session management controls
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03Users, services, and hardware are authenticated
BE-CF-23Baseline configuration establishment
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied
BE-CF-24Configuration change control
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied
BE-CF-25Security impact analysis
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied
BE-CF-27Software usage restrictions
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied
BE-CF-37Awareness and training
→NIST-CSF-PR.AT-01Personnel are provided awareness and training to perform cybersecurity duties
BE-CF-38System maintenance
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-03Hardware is maintained, replaced, and removed commensurate with risk
BE-CF-39Data security lifecycle management
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected

Belgium CyberFundamentals: Detect(1 mappings)

BE-CF-12Network monitoring and defense
→NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events

+26 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 719 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

Other Belgium CyberFundamentals comparisons

Belgium CyberFundamentals vs AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar18 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs Azure Security Benchmark18 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs NIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)17 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs OWASP Top 10:202515 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)14 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs API 116413 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements13 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs ISO/IEC 27400:202211 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

ISO 27001:2022 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.082 mappingsASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.032 mappingsASEAN Data Management Framework vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.025 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.022 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.022 mappingsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.020 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.020 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 719 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 719 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (428K+)
  • ✓ 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Belgium CyberFundamentals has 44 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 44 overlapping controls (100% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Belgium CyberFundamentals: Scoping and Regulatory Alignment, where 0 Belgium CyberFundamentals controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between Belgium CyberFundamentals and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 44 total Belgium CyberFundamentals controls, 44 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls — representing 100% coverage. The remaining 0 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

0 Belgium CyberFundamentals controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Belgium CyberFundamentals: Scoping and Regulatory Alignment with 0 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is Belgium CyberFundamentals: Scoping and Regulatory Alignment (0 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.