TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

ISMAP (Japan)vsOWASP Top 10:2025

See exactly how ISMAP (Japan) controls map to OWASP Top 10:2025. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

9
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
62%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISMAP (Japan) maps to OWASP Top 10:2025 with 62% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 ISMAP (Japan) controls identifies 3 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in ISMAP Assessment + International Coordination.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 700 frameworks | 323K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 9 of 9 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 323K+ mappings across 700 frameworks.

ISMAP Cloud Governance(1 mappings)

ISMAP-CloudGovernance-ISMS-RiskAssessment-SharedResponsibility-Policy-RegulatoryCompliance-RolesResponsibilitiesISMAP Cloud Governance - ISMS per ISO 27001/JIS Q 27001 + Risk Assessment + Shared Responsibility Model + Cloud Security Policy + Regulatory Compliance + Roles and Responsibilities
→OWASPTOP10-1A01:2025 Broken Access Control

ISMAP Cloud Infrastructure(1 mappings)

ISMAP-CloudInfrastructure-NetworkSegmentation-Container-Serverless-WorkloadProtection-Hardening-ConfigManagementISMAP Cloud Infrastructure - VPC Network Segmentation + Container/Serverless Security + Cloud Workload Protection (CWPP) + Image/Template Hardening + CIS Benchmarks + Configuration Management + IaC
→OWASPTOP10-2A02:2025 Cryptographic Failures and Secret Management

ISMAP Cloud Operations(1 mappings)

ISMAP-CloudOperations-Monitoring-Logging-IncidentResponse-NISC-Reporting-Vulnerability-Change-SLAISMAP Cloud Operations - Security Monitoring + SIEM + Logging + Incident Response + NISC Reporting + Vulnerability Management + Penetration Testing + Change Management + SLA Management
→OWASPTOP10-9A09:2025 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures

ISMAP Data Protection(2 mappings)

ISMAP-DataProtection-Classification-Encryption-DataResidencyJapan-Backup-SecureDeletion-Cryptography-FIPSISMAP Data Protection - Data Classification + AES-256 Encryption At Rest + TLS 1.3 In Transit + Data Residency Japan + Backup + Secure Deletion + Cryptography per FIPS 140-3 + CRYPTREC + KMS HSM2 targets
→OWASPTOP10-2A02:2025 Cryptographic Failures and Secret Management
→OWASPTOP10-4A04:2025 Insecure Design and Business Logic (incl. A11 API Abuse)

ISMAP Identity + Access(4 mappings)

ISMAP-Identity-Access-MFA-Privileged-Federation-SSO-API-Tokens-CloudIAM-PIV-PASETOISMAP Identity and Access Management - Cloud IAM + Multi-Factor Authentication + Privileged Access + Federation/SSO + API Security + Access Tokens + My Number Card Integration + Government IAM4 targets
→OWASPTOP10-1A01:2025 Broken Access Control
→OWASPTOP10-2A02:2025 Cryptographic Failures and Secret Management
→OWASPTOP10-6A06:2025 Vulnerable and Outdated Components
→OWASPTOP10-7A07:2025 Identification and Authentication Failures

Related Comparisons

Other ISMAP (Japan) comparisons

ISMAP (Japan) vs MITRE D3FEND5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs Spain ENS5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs BSI IT-Grundschutz5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs Azure Security Benchmark5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8)5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs ISO/IEC 27011:20245 mappings

Other OWASP Top 10:2025 comparisons

NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs OWASP Top 10:202510 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs OWASP Top 10:202510 mappingsSouth Korea ISMS-P vs OWASP Top 10:202510 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) vs OWASP Top 10:20259 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs OWASP Top 10:20259 mappingsNIS2 Directive Implementing Acts vs OWASP Top 10:20259 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs OWASP Top 10:20259 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs OWASP Top 10:20259 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 700 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 700 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (323K+)
  • ✓ 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 ISMAP (Japan) and OWASP Top 10:2025?

ISMAP (Japan) has 8 controls across its framework, while OWASP Top 10:2025 covers 19 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (62% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in ISMAP Assessment + International Coordination, where 1 ISMAP (Japan) controls have no direct OWASP Top 10:2025 equivalent.

How many controls map between ISMAP (Japan) and OWASP Top 10:2025?

Of 8 total ISMAP (Japan) controls, 5 map directly to OWASP Top 10:2025 controls — representing 62% coverage. The remaining 3 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISMAP (Japan) to OWASP Top 10:2025?

3 ISMAP (Japan) controls have no direct equivalent in OWASP Top 10:2025. The highest concentration of gaps is in ISMAP Assessment + International Coordination 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 ISMAP (Japan) and OWASP Top 10:2025?

The domain with the highest gap count is ISMAP Assessment + International Coordination (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.