TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsIEEE 1686

See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to IEEE 1686. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

15
Controls Mapped
20
Gaps Found
17%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 maps to IEEE 1686 with 17% coverage across 8 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 31 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Device Security.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 15 of 15 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Account Security(1 mappings)

CPG-1.DRevoking Credentials for Departing Employees
→IEEE1686-Section5.2-5.3-AuditLog-Retention-Export-MonitoringIEEE 1686 Section 5.2 + 5.3 - Audit Trail Records + Retention + Export + Supervisory Monitoring and Control + Network Security Monitoring

Governance & Training(1 mappings)

CPG-4.BOT Cybersecurity Leadership
→IEEE1686-Scope-IED-Substation-Automation-2022-IEC-NERC-NIST-CoordIEEE 1686 - Scope + Intelligent Electronic Devices (IEDs) + Substation Automation + 2022 Edition + Coordination with IEC 62351 + IEC 62443 + NERC CIP + NIST SP 800-82

Governance and Training(1 mappings)

CPG-4.BOT Cybersecurity Leadership
→IEEE1686-Scope-IED-Substation-Automation-2022-IEC-NERC-NIST-CoordIEEE 1686 - Scope + Intelligent Electronic Devices (IEDs) + Substation Automation + 2022 Edition + Coordination with IEC 62351 + IEC 62443 + NERC CIP + NIST SP 800-82

Vulnerability Management(1 mappings)

CPG-5.AVulnerability Disclosure Program
→IEEE1686-Section5.5-5.6-5.7-5.8-Firmware-ConfigSW-TimeSync-DataAtRestIEEE 1686 Section 5.5-5.8 - Firmware Quality + Configuration Software Security + Time Synchronisation + Data Protection at Rest + Patch + Malware + Hardening + Vulnerability

Supply Chain(3 mappings)

CPG-6.AVendor and Supplier Incident Reporting3 targets
→IEEE1686-IR-Recovery-Reporting-Exercises-Drills-RECOVIEEE 1686 - Incident Response + Recovery from Failed Update + Reporting to Authorities + Coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies + Exercises and Drills
→IEEE1686-Section5.5-5.6-5.7-5.8-Firmware-ConfigSW-TimeSync-DataAtRestIEEE 1686 Section 5.5-5.8 - Firmware Quality + Configuration Software Security + Time Synchronisation + Data Protection at Rest + Patch + Malware + Hardening + Vulnerability
→IEEE1686-SupplyChain-Documentation-Procurement-ComplianceTable-PhysicalIEEE 1686 Section 6 IED Security Documentation + Supply Chain + Procurement Specification + Appendix A Compliance Table + Physical and Tamper

Supply Chain and Third Party(6 mappings)

CPG-6.AVendor and Supplier Incident Reporting3 targets
→IEEE1686-IR-Recovery-Reporting-Exercises-Drills-RECOVIEEE 1686 - Incident Response + Recovery from Failed Update + Reporting to Authorities + Coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies + Exercises and Drills
→IEEE1686-Section5.5-5.6-5.7-5.8-Firmware-ConfigSW-TimeSync-DataAtRestIEEE 1686 Section 5.5-5.8 - Firmware Quality + Configuration Software Security + Time Synchronisation + Data Protection at Rest + Patch + Malware + Hardening + Vulnerability
→IEEE1686-SupplyChain-Documentation-Procurement-ComplianceTable-PhysicalIEEE 1686 Section 6 IED Security Documentation + Supply Chain + Procurement Specification + Appendix A Compliance Table + Physical and Tamper
CPG-6.BSupply Chain Incident Reporting3 targets
→IEEE1686-IR-Recovery-Reporting-Exercises-Drills-RECOVIEEE 1686 - Incident Response + Recovery from Failed Update + Reporting to Authorities + Coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies + Exercises and Drills
→IEEE1686-Section5.5-5.6-5.7-5.8-Firmware-ConfigSW-TimeSync-DataAtRestIEEE 1686 Section 5.5-5.8 - Firmware Quality + Configuration Software Security + Time Synchronisation + Data Protection at Rest + Patch + Malware + Hardening + Vulnerability
→IEEE1686-SupplyChain-Documentation-Procurement-ComplianceTable-PhysicalIEEE 1686 Section 6 IED Security Documentation + Supply Chain + Procurement Specification + Appendix A Compliance Table + Physical and Tamper

Network Segmentation(2 mappings)

CPG-8.ANetwork Segmentation2 targets
→IEEE1686-Section5.1-AccessControl-Accounts-Roles-Password-Session-RemoteIEEE 1686 Section 5.1 - Electronic Access Account Management + Roles + Password + Failed Login + Session + Remote Access + Personnel
→IEEE1686-Section5.2-5.3-AuditLog-Retention-Export-MonitoringIEEE 1686 Section 5.2 + 5.3 - Audit Trail Records + Retention + Export + Supervisory Monitoring and Control + Network Security Monitoring

Related Comparisons

Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs Azure Security Benchmark14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-124 Revision 2 - Guidelines for Managing the Security of Mobile Devices13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements12 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs ISO/IEC 27011:202412 mappings

Other IEEE 1686 comparisons

IEC 62443 vs IEEE 16866 mappingsAPI 1164 vs IEEE 16866 mappingsISO/IEC 27010:2015 vs IEEE 16866 mappingsOWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) vs IEEE 16865 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs IEEE 16865 mappingsISO/IEC 27011:2024 vs IEEE 16865 mappingsFFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) vs IEEE 16865 mappingsIAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) vs IEEE 16865 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 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 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and IEEE 1686?

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 35 controls across its framework, while IEEE 1686 covers 7 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (17% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 8 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct IEEE 1686 equivalent.

How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and IEEE 1686?

Of 35 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 8 map directly to IEEE 1686 controls — representing 17% coverage. The remaining 31 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 IEEE 1686?

31 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in IEEE 1686. 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 IEEE 1686?

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

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.