CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsRhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA)
See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA). 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 Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA) with 22% coverage across 9 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 40 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 31 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Account Security.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 40 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 19 of 19 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Response and Recovery(5 mappings)
Data Security(11 mappings)
Supply Chain and Third Party(3 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons
Other Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA) 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 Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA)?
CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 40 controls across its framework, while Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA) covers 63 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 9 overlapping controls (22% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Account Security, where 6 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA) equivalent.
How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA)?
Of 40 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 9 map directly to Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA) controls — representing 22% 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 Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA)?
31 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA). The highest concentration of gaps is in Account 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 Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Account 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.