Cross-Framework Mapping

FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

Name: FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Control Mapping Dataset
Creator: TheArtOfService

See exactly how FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

Controls Mapped

Gaps Found

20%

Coverage

Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 20% coverage across 10 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 49 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls identifies 39 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Inherent Risk Profile.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 49 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 21 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

Domain 1: Cyber Risk Management and Oversight(3 mappings)

CAT-D1-2Risk management3 targets

→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-03Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes

→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction that describes appropriate risk response options is established and communicated

→NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders

Domain 2: Threat Intelligence and Collaboration(4 mappings)

CAT-D2-1Threat intelligence2 targets

→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and other contextual information are integrated into the analysis

→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums and sources

CAT-D2-2Monitoring and analyzing2 targets

→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and other contextual information are integrated into the analysis

→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums and sources

Domain 3: Cybersecurity Controls(2 mappings)

CAT-D3-2Detective controls

→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-04Log records are generated and made available for continuous monitoring

CAT-D3-3Corrective controls

→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied

Domain 5: Cyber Incident Management and Resilience(6 mappings)

CAT-D5-1Incident planning and strategy3 targets

→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-04Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans that affect operations are established, communicated, maintained, and improved

→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed once initiated from the incident response process

→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-01The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties once an incident is declared

CAT-D5-4Resilience planning and testing3 targets

→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-10The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected

→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-03Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations

→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-04Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained

Inherent Risk Profile: Risk Categories(3 mappings)

CAT-IRP-4Organizational characteristics

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of least privilege and separation of duties

CAT-IRP-5External threats2 targets

→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and other contextual information are integrated into the analysis

→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums and sources

Maturity Levels(2 mappings)

CAT-ML-2Evolving2 targets

→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-03Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes

→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction that describes appropriate risk response options is established and communicated

+1 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 686 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

A FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 crosswalk, built to order

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls your existing FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

Not published yet

This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.

If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)

Not published yet

If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.

FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 (built to order)

$299

per framework pair, one time

Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
Every gap, with what it requires
Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number

Why this page shows two different percentages. The 20% in the header counts how many FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.

A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.

Related Comparisons

Other FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) comparisons

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

✓ 686 framework browser
✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
✓ 824 compliance assessments
✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day

Get Started Free

Recommended

$149/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 800-53 ISO 27001 vs NIST CSF CMMC vs NIST 800-53 FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53 NIST CSF vs SOC 2 HIPAA vs NIST 800-53 ISO 27001 vs SOC 2 ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) has 49 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 10 overlapping controls (20% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Inherent Risk Profile, where 5 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 49 total FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls, 10 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, representing 20% coverage. The remaining 39 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

39 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Inherent Risk Profile 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 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is Inherent Risk Profile (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.