TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

China Data Security Law (DSL)vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

See exactly how China Data Security Law (DSL) controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

8
Controls Mapped
13
Gaps Found
33%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

China Data Security Law (DSL) maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 33% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 21 China Data Security Law (DSL) controls identifies 14 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in China DSL: Government Data and Legal Liability (Chapters V-VII).

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 21 controls analysed | 723 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 8 of 8 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 723 frameworks.

China DSL: Data Security System (Chapter III)(4 mappings)

DSL-Art21Hierarchical Data Classification, Core Data and Important Data Catalogue (Art. 21)
→NIST-CSF-ID.AM-01Inventories of hardware managed by the organization are maintained
DSL-Art22National Data Security Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Early Warning (Art. 22)
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-01Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded
DSL-Art23Data Security Emergency Response (Art. 23)
→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-01The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties
DSL-Art24National Security Review of Data Activities (Art. 24)
→NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01Cybersecurity supply chain risk management program is established

China DSL: Data Security Protection Obligations (Chapter IV)(4 mappings)

DSL-Art27Data Security Management System and Whole-Lifecycle Measures (Art. 27)2 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-01Risk management objectives are established and agreed upon
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected
DSL-Art29Risk Monitoring, Remediation and Incident Notification (Art. 29)
→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-01The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties
DSL-Art30Important Data Risk Assessment and Reporting (Art. 30)
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-01Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded

Related Comparisons

Other China Data Security Law (DSL) comparisons

China Data Security Law (DSL) vs China Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL)3 mappingsChina Data Security Law (DSL) vs GDPR1 mappingsChina Data Security Law (DSL) vs China Cybersecurity Law (CSL)1 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

Belgium CyberFundamentals vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.032 mappingsASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.032 mappingsASEAN Data Management Framework vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.025 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.022 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.022 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 723 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 723 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 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 China Data Security Law (DSL) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

China Data Security Law (DSL) has 21 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (33% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in China DSL: Government Data and Legal Liability (Chapters V-VII), where 4 China Data Security Law (DSL) controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between China Data Security Law (DSL) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 21 total China Data Security Law (DSL) controls, 7 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls — representing 33% coverage. The remaining 14 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping China Data Security Law (DSL) to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

14 China Data Security Law (DSL) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in China DSL: Government Data and Legal Liability (Chapters V-VII) with 4 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 China Data Security Law (DSL) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is China DSL: Government Data and Legal Liability (Chapters V-VII) (4 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.