ISO 27799vsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0
See exactly how ISO 27799 controls map to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. 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:
ISO 27799 maps to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 with 22% coverage across 10 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 46 ISO 27799 controls identifies 36 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Operations.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 46 controls analysed | 692 frameworks | 306K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 18 of 18 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 306K+ mappings across 692 frameworks.
ISO 27799: Patient Data Protection(8 mappings)
ISO 27799: Administrative Safeguards(3 mappings)
ISO 27799: Technical Safeguards(6 mappings)
ISO 27799: Physical Safeguards(1 mappings)
A ISO 27799 to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls your existing ISO 27799 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 22% in the header counts how many ISO 27799 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 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 ISO 27799 comparisons
Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 692 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 692 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (306K+)
- ✓ 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 ISO 27799 and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
ISO 27799 has 46 controls across its framework, while CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 10 overlapping controls (22% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Operations, where 4 ISO 27799 controls have no direct CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO 27799 and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
Of 46 total ISO 27799 controls, 10 map directly to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, representing 22% coverage. The remaining 36 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 27799 to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
36 ISO 27799 controls have no direct equivalent in CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Operations with 4 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 27799 and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
The domain with the highest gap count is Operations (4 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.