CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk)vsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0
See exactly how CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) controls map to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) maps to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 with 73% coverage across 11 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 15 CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) controls identifies 4 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Threat and Vulnerability Management.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 15 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 27 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Threat and Vulnerability Management(4 mappings)
Data Security and Privacy(8 mappings)
Infrastructure and Operations Security(8 mappings)
+7 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 693 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever — no credit card required
Related Comparisons
Other CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) comparisons
Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 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 CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) has 15 controls across its framework, while CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 covers 40 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 11 overlapping controls (73% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Threat and Vulnerability Management, where 2 CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) controls have no direct CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 equivalent.
How many controls map between CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
Of 15 total CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) controls, 11 map directly to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls — representing 73% coverage. The remaining 4 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
4 CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) controls have no direct equivalent in CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Threat and Vulnerability Management with 2 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 CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
The domain with the highest gap count is Threat and Vulnerability Management (2 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.