EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)vsISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration
See exactly how EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) 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:
EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) maps to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration with 4% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls identifies 27 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in EBA GL 3.4: Information Security.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 723 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 3 of 3 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 723 frameworks.
EBA GL 3.3: ICT and Security Risk Management Framework(3 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 723 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 723 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 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 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) and ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration?
EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) has 28 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 (4% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in EBA GL 3.4: Information Security, where 7 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls have no direct ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration equivalent.
How many controls map between EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) and ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration?
Of 28 total EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls, 1 map directly to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration controls — representing 4% coverage. The remaining 27 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 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration?
27 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls have no direct equivalent in ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration. The highest concentration of gaps is in EBA GL 3.4: Information Security 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 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) and ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration?
The domain with the highest gap count is EBA GL 3.4: Information Security (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.