TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsISO/IEC 27011:2024

See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to ISO/IEC 27011:2024. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

33
Controls Mapped
2
Gaps Found
34%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 maps to ISO/IEC 27011:2024 with 34% coverage across 14 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 25 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 33 mapped controls across 9 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Account Security(7 mappings)

CPG-1.CUnique Credentials4 targets
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training
→27011-8.1User Endpoint Devices
→27011-8.1User Endpoint Devices
CPG-1.DRevoking Credentials for Departing Employees3 targets
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training
→27011-8.2Network security and segregation

Data Security(7 mappings)

CPG-3.ALog Collection
→27011-8.3Cryptography and key management
CPG-3.BSecure Log Storage
→27011-8.3Cryptography and key management
CPG-3.CStrong and Agile Encryption5 targets
→27011-5.2Information Security Roles in Telecoms
→27011-5.2Information Security Roles in Telecoms
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training
→27011-8.6Data protection and backup

Governance & Training(2 mappings)

CPG-4.CBasic Cybersecurity Training2 targets
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training

Governance and Training(2 mappings)

CPG-4.CBasic Cybersecurity Training2 targets
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training
→27011-6.3Awareness and Training

Vulnerability Management(1 mappings)

CPG-5.AVulnerability Disclosure Program
→27011-8.5Vulnerability and malware management

Supply Chain(1 mappings)

CPG-6.AVendor and Supplier Incident Reporting
→27011-5.6Supplier relationships and telecom supply chain

+13 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

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 NIST Privacy Framework12 mappings

Other ISO/IEC 27011:2024 comparisons

AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs ISO/IEC 27011:202414 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs ISO/IEC 27011:202413 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs ISO/IEC 27011:202413 mappingsISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs ISO/IEC 27011:202413 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs ISO/IEC 27011:202412 mappingsFedRAMP Rev 5 vs ISO/IEC 27011:202412 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs ISO/IEC 27011:202412 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs ISO/IEC 27011:202412 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 ISO/IEC 27011:2024?

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 35 controls across its framework, while ISO/IEC 27011:2024 covers 44 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 14 overlapping controls (34% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 8 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct ISO/IEC 27011:2024 equivalent.

How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and ISO/IEC 27011:2024?

Of 35 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 14 map directly to ISO/IEC 27011:2024 controls — representing 34% coverage. The remaining 25 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 27011:2024?

25 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO/IEC 27011:2024. 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 ISO/IEC 27011:2024?

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.