EASA Part-IS - Information Security in AviationvsISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration
See exactly how EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation controls map to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation maps to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration with 3% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 34 EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation controls identifies 33 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Part-IS.I.OR: Organisation Requirements (Implementing Regulation EU 2023/203).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 34 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 2 of 2 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Part-IS.AR: Authority Requirements(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (309K+)
- ✓ 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 EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration?
EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation has 34 controls across its framework, while ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration covers 41 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 1 overlapping controls (3% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Part-IS.I.OR: Organisation Requirements (Implementing Regulation EU 2023/203), where 7 EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation controls have no direct ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration equivalent.
How many controls map between EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration?
Of 34 total EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation controls, 1 map directly to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration controls — representing 3% coverage. The remaining 33 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 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration?
33 EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation controls have no direct equivalent in ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration. The highest concentration of gaps is in Part-IS.I.OR: Organisation Requirements (Implementing Regulation EU 2023/203) with 7 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 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration?
The domain with the highest gap count is Part-IS.I.OR: Organisation Requirements (Implementing Regulation EU 2023/203) (7 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.