TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsMARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges

See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

8
Controls Mapped
27
Gaps Found
20%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 maps to MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges with 20% 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 8 of 8 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Account Security(2 mappings)

CPG-1.AChanging Default Passwords
→MARSE-SC-03Identity Verification
CPG-1.CUnique Credentials
→MARSE-SC-03Identity Verification

Data Security(2 mappings)

CPG-3.ALog Collection
→MARSE-SC-02Federal Tax Information Protection
CPG-3.BSecure Log Storage
→MARSE-SC-02Federal Tax Information Protection

Governance & Training(1 mappings)

CPG-4.CBasic Cybersecurity Training
→MARSE-SC-03Identity Verification

Governance and Training(1 mappings)

CPG-4.CBasic Cybersecurity Training
→MARSE-SC-03Identity Verification

Network Segmentation(2 mappings)

CPG-8.ANetwork Segmentation
→MARSE-SC-02Federal Tax Information Protection
CPG-8.CEncrypted DNS
→MARSE-SC-02Federal Tax Information Protection

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 MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges comparisons

ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges3 mappingsOman National Cybersecurity Framework vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges3 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges3 mappingsNAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges3 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges3 mappingsISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges3 mappingsISO/IEC 23837 - Security Requirements for Quantum Key Distribution vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges3 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges3 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 MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges?

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 35 controls across its framework, while MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges covers 3 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (20% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 8 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges equivalent.

How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges?

Of 35 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 8 map directly to MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges controls — representing 20% 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 MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges?

31 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges. 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 MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges?

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.