ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC)vsSOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination
See exactly how ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) controls map to SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
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:
ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) maps to SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination with 20% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 10 ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) controls identifies 8 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in ICAO Annex 17 Chap 5 - Contingency + Response.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 10 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 6 of 6 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
ICAO Annex 17 Chap 2 - Threat + Risk + Cyber(5 mappings)
ICAO Annex 17 Chap 4 - Cargo + Mail + Catering(1 mappings)
A ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) to SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination controls your existing ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
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.
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.
- 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 ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination 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 ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) comparisons
Other SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination 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 (310K+)
- ✓ 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 ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) and SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination?
ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) has 10 controls across its framework, while SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination covers 22 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (20% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in ICAO Annex 17 Chap 5 - Contingency + Response, where 1 ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) controls have no direct SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination equivalent.
How many controls map between ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) and SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination?
Of 10 total ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) controls, 2 map directly to SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination controls, representing 20% coverage. The remaining 8 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) to SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination?
8 ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) controls have no direct equivalent in SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination. The highest concentration of gaps is in ICAO Annex 17 Chap 5 - Contingency + Response 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 ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) and SOC for Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management Examination?
The domain with the highest gap count is ICAO Annex 17 Chap 5 - Contingency + Response (1 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.