Cross-Framework Mapping

IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Securityvs3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501)

See exactly how IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls map to 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

4
Controls Mapped
30
Gaps Found
6%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security maps to 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) with 6% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 34 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls identifies 32 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Parts 12-14: DER, Resilience, and Monitoring.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 34 controls analysed | 706 frameworks | 324K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 324K+ mappings across 706 frameworks.

Parts 7-9: Network Management, Access Control, and Key Management(4 mappings)

62351-8Role-based access control (RBAC)2 targets
TS33.501-13.1NF Registration and Discovery Security
TS33.501-13.4OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework
62351-9Cyber security key management2 targets
TS33.501-13.2NF Service Authorization
TS33.501-6.6AS Security

Related Comparisons

Other IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security comparisons

Other 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 706 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 706 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (324K+)
  • 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 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security and 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501)?

IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security has 34 controls across its framework, while 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) covers 43 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (6% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Parts 12-14: DER, Resilience, and Monitoring, where 3 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls have no direct 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) equivalent.

How many controls map between IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security and 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501)?

Of 34 total IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls, 2 map directly to 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) controls — representing 6% coverage. The remaining 32 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security to 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501)?

32 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls have no direct equivalent in 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501). The highest concentration of gaps is in Parts 12-14: DER, Resilience, and Monitoring with 3 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 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security and 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Parts 12-14: DER, Resilience, and Monitoring (3 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.