CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar
See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar. 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar with 40% coverage across 15 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 24 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Device Security.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 704 frameworks | 357K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 18 of 18 mapped controls across 8 domains. Sign up to explore all 357K+ mappings across 704 frameworks.
Account Security(4 mappings)
Data Security(5 mappings)
Governance & Training(1 mappings)
Governance and Training(1 mappings)
Vulnerability Management(1 mappings)
Supply Chain and Third Party(1 mappings)
Response & Recovery(3 mappings)
Network Segmentation(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons
Other AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 704 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 704 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (357K+)
- ✓ 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar?
CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 35 controls across its framework, while AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar covers 89 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 15 overlapping controls (40% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 8 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar equivalent.
How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar?
Of 35 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 15 map directly to AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls — representing 40% coverage. The remaining 24 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar?
24 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar. 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar?
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.