TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

EASA Part-IS — Information Security in AviationvsCOSO ERM

See exactly how EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation controls map to COSO ERM. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

16
Controls Mapped
2
Gaps Found
33%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation maps to COSO ERM with 33% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 18 EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation controls identifies 12 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Part-IS.D.OR: Organisation Requirements (Delegated Regulation EU 2022/1645).

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 18 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 16 of 16 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Part-IS.AR: Authority Requirements(1 mappings)

IS.AR.210Findings and Corrective Actions
→COSO-19Continuous improvement of risk processes

Part-IS.D.OR: Organisation Requirements (Delegated Regulation EU 2022/1645)(6 mappings)

IS.D.OR.205Information Security Risk Assessment3 targets
→COSO-07Risk analysis and evaluation
→COSO-08Risk criteria and thresholds
→COSO-09Risk scenario development
IS.D.OR.210Information Security Risk Treatment3 targets
→COSO-11Risk treatment options and selection
→COSO-13Residual risk acceptance
→COSO-15Control implementation and monitoring

Part-IS.I.OR: Organisation Requirements (Implementing Regulation EU 2023/203)(9 mappings)

IS.I.OR.205Information Security Risk Assessment3 targets
→COSO-07Risk analysis and evaluation
→COSO-08Risk criteria and thresholds
→COSO-09Risk scenario development
IS.I.OR.210Information Security Risk Treatment3 targets
→COSO-11Risk treatment options and selection
→COSO-13Residual risk acceptance
→COSO-15Control implementation and monitoring
IS.I.OR.220Information Security Risk Management3 targets
→COSO-11Risk treatment options and selection
→COSO-13Residual risk acceptance
→COSO-15Control implementation and monitoring

Related Comparisons

Other EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation comparisons

EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements9 mappingsEASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange9 mappingsEASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation vs South Korea ISMS-P9 mappingsEASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation vs C2M28 mappingsEASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation vs IEEE 16868 mappingsEASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation vs NIS2 Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2555)8 mappingsEASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation vs API 11648 mappingsEASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation vs EU GMP Annex 11: Computerised Systems8 mappings

Other COSO ERM comparisons

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs COSO ERM7 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs COSO ERM7 mappingsISO 27005 vs COSO ERM7 mappingsSouth Korea ISMS-P vs COSO ERM7 mappingsGerman Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) vs COSO ERM7 mappingsNIST SP 800-39 vs COSO ERM7 mappingsNIST SP 800-37 vs COSO ERM7 mappingsBS 65000:2014 — Guidance on Organizational Resilience vs COSO ERM7 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 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 EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation and COSO ERM?

EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation has 18 controls across its framework, while COSO ERM covers 20 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (33% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Part-IS.D.OR: Organisation Requirements (Delegated Regulation EU 2022/1645), where 5 EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation controls have no direct COSO ERM equivalent.

How many controls map between EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation and COSO ERM?

Of 18 total EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation controls, 6 map directly to COSO ERM controls — representing 33% coverage. The remaining 12 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation to COSO ERM?

12 EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation controls have no direct equivalent in COSO ERM. The highest concentration of gaps is in Part-IS.D.OR: Organisation Requirements (Delegated Regulation EU 2022/1645) with 5 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 EASA Part-IS — Information Security in Aviation and COSO ERM?

The domain with the highest gap count is Part-IS.D.OR: Organisation Requirements (Delegated Regulation EU 2022/1645) (5 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.