CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsAS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence
See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 maps to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence with 11% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 34 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Device Security.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 723 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 8 of 8 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 723 frameworks.
Data Security(2 mappings)
Supply Chain(2 mappings)
Supply Chain and Third Party(4 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons
Other AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 723 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 723 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?
CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 35 controls across its framework, while AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence covers 42 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (11% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 8 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence equivalent.
How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?
Of 35 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 5 map directly to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls — representing 11% coverage. The remaining 34 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?
34 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. The highest concentration of gaps is in Device Security with 8 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 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?
The domain with the highest gap count is Device Security (8 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
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.