DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne SystemsvsISO/IEC 27003:2017
See exactly how DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls map to ISO/IEC 27003:2017. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems maps to ISO/IEC 27003:2017 with 22% coverage across 8 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 36 DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls identifies 28 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Testing and Integration Verification (Tables A-6 & A-7).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 36 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 16 of 16 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Software Planning Process(3 mappings)
Software Development Process(1 mappings)
Verification of Requirements (Tables A-3 & A-4)(3 mappings)
Verification of Design and Code (Tables A-4 & A-5)(3 mappings)
Configuration Management (Table A-8)(6 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 27003:2017 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 DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and ISO/IEC 27003:2017?
DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems has 36 controls across its framework, while ISO/IEC 27003:2017 covers 57 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (22% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Testing and Integration Verification (Tables A-6 & A-7), where 6 DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls have no direct ISO/IEC 27003:2017 equivalent.
How many controls map between DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and ISO/IEC 27003:2017?
Of 36 total DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls, 8 map directly to ISO/IEC 27003:2017 controls — representing 22% coverage. The remaining 28 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems to ISO/IEC 27003:2017?
28 DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls have no direct equivalent in ISO/IEC 27003:2017. The highest concentration of gaps is in Testing and Integration Verification (Tables A-6 & A-7) 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 DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and ISO/IEC 27003:2017?
The domain with the highest gap count is Testing and Integration Verification (Tables A-6 & A-7) (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.