TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

HL7 FHIR Security FrameworkvsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements

See exactly how HL7 FHIR Security Framework controls map to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

7
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
43%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

HL7 FHIR Security Framework maps to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements with 43% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 7 HL7 FHIR Security Framework controls identifies 4 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in FHIR Security Framework: Scope, FHIR R4/R5/R6 Versions, HL7 Specification + Security/Privacy Module.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 7 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

FHIR Security: Audit + Provenance + Digital Signatures + AuditEvent + Resource Integrity(1 mappings)

HL7-FHIR-Audit-Provenance-DigitalSignatures-IntegrityHL7 FHIR Audit + Provenance + Digital Signatures + AuditEvent Resource + Audit Log Integrity + Retention
→3.3.1Audit Record Creation

FHIR Security: Authentication + SMART App Launch + OpenID Connect + Backend Services + Token Lifetime(2 mappings)

HL7-FHIR-Auth-SMART-OAuth-OIDC-BackendHL7 FHIR Authentication - SMART App Launch + OAuth 2.0 + OpenID Connect + Backend Services + Token Lifetime2 targets
→3.7Establish and Maintain a Data Classification Scheme
→3.7.1Key generation procedures

FHIR Security: Transport TLS + Communication + Time Keeping + Server CapabilityStatement(4 mappings)

HL7-FHIR-Transport-TLS-CommunicationHL7 FHIR Transport Security - TLS 1.2+, Communication Security, Time Keeping, Server CapabilityStatement4 targets
→3.3.1Audit Record Creation
→FEDRAMP-SC-13Cryptographic Protection
→FEDRAMP-SC-28Protection of Information at Rest
→FEDRAMP-SC-8Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity

Related Comparisons

Other HL7 FHIR Security Framework comparisons

HL7 FHIR Security Framework vs NIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)3 mappingsHL7 FHIR Security Framework vs OWASP Top 10:20253 mappingsHL7 FHIR Security Framework vs OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM)3 mappingsHL7 FHIR Security Framework vs OWASP ASVS3 mappingsHL7 FHIR Security Framework vs MITRE D3FEND3 mappingsHL7 FHIR Security Framework vs IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems3 mappingsHL7 FHIR Security Framework vs BSI IT-Grundschutz3 mappingsHL7 FHIR Security Framework vs Azure Security Benchmark3 mappings

Other NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements comparisons

NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements20 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements18 mappingsMTCS (Singapore) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements17 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements16 mappingsNIST SP 800-146 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsNIST SP 800-145 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsNIST SP 800-144 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappings

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 →

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 HL7 FHIR Security Framework and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

HL7 FHIR Security Framework has 7 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 3 overlapping controls (43% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in FHIR Security Framework: Scope, FHIR R4/R5/R6 Versions, HL7 Specification + Security/Privacy Module, where 1 HL7 FHIR Security Framework controls have no direct NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements equivalent.

How many controls map between HL7 FHIR Security Framework and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

Of 7 total HL7 FHIR Security Framework controls, 3 map directly to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls — representing 43% coverage. The remaining 4 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping HL7 FHIR Security Framework to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

4 HL7 FHIR Security Framework controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. The highest concentration of gaps is in FHIR Security Framework: Scope, FHIR R4/R5/R6 Versions, HL7 Specification + Security/Privacy Module with 1 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 HL7 FHIR Security Framework and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

The domain with the highest gap count is FHIR Security Framework: Scope, FHIR R4/R5/R6 Versions, HL7 Specification + Security/Privacy Module (1 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.