Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO 27002:2022vsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents

See exactly how ISO 27002:2022 controls map to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

80
Controls Mapped
24
Gaps Found
34%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO 27002:2022 maps to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents with 34% coverage across 36 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 104 ISO 27002:2022 controls identifies 68 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Organizational controls – ISO 27002:2022.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 104 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 80 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

Organizational controls – ISO 27002:2022(17 mappings)

iso-27002-2022::5.11Return of assets
ASD37-37Personnel management (Very Good)
iso-27002-2022::5.14Information transfer3 targets
ASD37-14Block spoofed emails (Very Good)
ASD37-17TLS encryption between email servers (Limited)
ASD37-27Outbound data loss prevention (Very Good)
iso-27002-2022::5.17Authentication information2 targets
ASD37-21Disable local administrator accounts (Excellent)
ASD37-23Protect authentication credentials (Excellent)
iso-27002-2022::5.18Access rights
ASD37-18Restrict administrative privileges (Essential)
iso-27002-2022::5.24Information security incident management planning and preparation
ASD37-28Continuous incident detection and response (Excellent)
iso-27002-2022::5.25Assessment and decision on information security events2 targets
ASD37-28Continuous incident detection and response (Excellent)
ASD37-31Hunt to discover incidents (Very Good)
iso-27002-2022::5.26Response to information security incidents
ASD37-28Continuous incident detection and response (Excellent)
iso-27002-2022::5.28Collection of evidence
ASD37-33Capture network traffic (Limited)
iso-27002-2022::5.29Information security during disruption
ASD37-35Business continuity and disaster recovery plans (Very Good)
iso-27002-2022::5.30ICT readiness for business continuity3 targets
ASD37-34Regular backups (Essential)
ASD37-35Business continuity and disaster recovery plans (Very Good)
ASD37-36System recovery capabilities (Very Good)
iso-27002-2022::5.7Threat intelligence
ASD37-31Hunt to discover incidents (Very Good)

People controls – ISO 27002:2022(3 mappings)

iso-27002-2022::6.1Screening
ASD37-37Personnel management (Very Good)
iso-27002-2022::6.3Information security awareness, education and training2 targets
ASD37-15User education (Limited)
ASD37-37Personnel management (Very Good)

+60 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

The ISO 27002:2022 to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls your existing ISO 27002:2022 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

Coverage does not run both ways. ISO 27002:2022 into ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents lands at 78.4%, while ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents into ISO 27002:2022 lands at 21.5%, on the same two control sets. That is not a rounding difference. It is the whole reason these are two separate reports: one asks what your ISO 27002:2022 evidence buys you for ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents, the other asks the reverse.

ISO 27002:2022 into ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents
78.4%

29 of 37 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27002:2022. 8 are genuine gaps.

76.5%Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution
80%Limiting the Extent of Cyber Security Incidents
83.3%Detecting Cyber Security Incidents and Responding
66.7%Recovering Data and System Availability
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 52 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: ASD37-01 Application control (Essential)

Only approved software may be installed and executed on operational systems.

Grounded in iso-27002-2022::8.19 Installation of software on operational systems. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: ASD37-04 User application hardening (Essential)

Configure web browsers to block Flash, ads and Java on the internet. Disable unneeded features in Microsoft Office, web browsers and PDF viewers.

Every one of the 29 evidenced controls and 8 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents into ISO 27002:2022
21.5%

20 of 93 ISO 27002:2022 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. 73 are genuine gaps.

41.2%Technological controls
8.1%Organizational controls
37.5%People controls
0%Physical controls
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 62 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: 5.17 Authentication information

ASD requires credentials removed from memory, caching limited and credential storage centralised.

Grounded in ASD37-23 Protect authentication credentials (Excellent). Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: 5.1 Policies for information security

Requires an information security policy together with supporting topic specific policies. These must be defined, approved by management, published, communicated to and acknowledged by relevant personnel and relevant interested parties, and...

Every one of the 20 evidenced controls and 73 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

ISO 27002:2022 to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents
$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 34% in the header counts how many ISO 27002:2022 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents 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.

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 (309K+)
  • 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 →

What are the key differences between ISO 27002:2022 and ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

ISO 27002:2022 has 104 controls across its framework, while ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents covers 37 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 36 overlapping controls (34% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Organizational controls – ISO 27002:2022, where 26 ISO 27002:2022 controls have no direct ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO 27002:2022 and ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

Of 104 total ISO 27002:2022 controls, 36 map directly to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls, representing 34% coverage. The remaining 68 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 27002:2022 to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

68 ISO 27002:2022 controls have no direct equivalent in ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. The highest concentration of gaps is in Organizational controls – ISO 27002:2022 with 26 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 ISO 27002:2022 and ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

The domain with the highest gap count is Organizational controls – ISO 27002:2022 (26 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.