CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)
See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). 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 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) with 25% coverage across 10 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 40 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 30 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Device Security.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 40 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 18 of 18 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Response and Recovery(9 mappings)
Account Security(2 mappings)
Data Security(2 mappings)
Governance and Training(1 mappings)
Supply Chain and Third Party(3 mappings)
Network Segmentation(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons
Other RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 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 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?
CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 40 controls across its framework, while RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) covers 18 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 10 overlapping controls (25% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 6 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) equivalent.
How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?
Of 40 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 10 map directly to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls — representing 25% coverage. The remaining 30 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 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?
30 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). 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 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?
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.