Cross-Framework Mapping

EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)vsDORA

See exactly how EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls map to DORA. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

9
Controls Mapped
19
Gaps Found
32%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) maps to DORA with 32% coverage across 9 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls identifies 19 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in EBA GL 3.4: Information Security.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 9 of 9 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

EBA GL 3.2: Governance and Strategy(2 mappings)

EBA-GL-3.2.1Governance
DORA-Art.5Governance and organisation
EBA-GL-3.2.3Use of third party providers
DORA-Art.28ICT third-party risk: general principles

EBA GL 3.3: ICT and Security Risk Management Framework(2 mappings)

EBA-GL-3.3.1Organisation and objectives
DORA-Art.6ICT risk management framework
EBA-GL-3.3.2Identification of functions, processes and assets
DORA-Art.8Identification

EBA GL 3.4: Information Security(2 mappings)

EBA-GL-3.4.2Logical security
DORA-Art.9Protection and prevention
EBA-GL-3.4.5Security monitoring
DORA-Art.10Detection

EBA GL 3.5: ICT Operations Management(1 mappings)

EBA-GL-3.5.1ICT incident and problem management
DORA-Art.17ICT-related incident management process

EBA GL 3.7: Business Continuity Management(2 mappings)

EBA-GL-3.7.1Business impact analysis
DORA-Art.11Response and recovery
EBA-GL-3.7.3Response and recovery plans
DORA-Art.11Response and recovery

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 718 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • 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 →

What are the key differences between EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) and DORA?

EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) has 28 controls across its framework, while DORA covers 26 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 9 overlapping controls (32% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in EBA GL 3.4: Information Security, where 5 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls have no direct DORA equivalent.

How many controls map between EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) and DORA?

Of 28 total EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls, 9 map directly to DORA controls — representing 32% coverage. The remaining 19 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) to DORA?

19 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls have no direct equivalent in DORA. The highest concentration of gaps is in EBA GL 3.4: Information Security 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 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) and DORA?

The domain with the highest gap count is EBA GL 3.4: Information Security (5 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

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.