CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsISO/IEC 27010:2015
See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to ISO/IEC 27010:2015. 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 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 with 31% coverage across 12 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 27 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Device Security.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 27 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
Account Security(2 mappings)
Device Security(4 mappings)
Data Security(4 mappings)
Supply Chain(2 mappings)
Supply Chain and Third Party(4 mappings)
Response & Recovery(4 mappings)
+7 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 718 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever — no credit card required
Related Comparisons
Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 27010:2015 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 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 ISO/IEC 27010:2015?
CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 35 controls across its framework, while ISO/IEC 27010:2015 covers 28 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 12 overlapping controls (31% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 6 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct ISO/IEC 27010:2015 equivalent.
How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and ISO/IEC 27010:2015?
Of 35 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 12 map directly to ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls — representing 31% coverage. The remaining 27 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 ISO/IEC 27010:2015?
27 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO/IEC 27010:2015. The highest concentration of gaps is in Device Security with 6 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 ISO/IEC 27010:2015?
The domain with the highest gap count is Device Security (6 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.