TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO/IEC 27010:2015vsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0

See exactly how ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls map to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

27
Controls Mapped
1
Gaps Found
29%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO/IEC 27010:2015 maps to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 with 29% coverage across 15 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls identifies 31 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 27 mapped controls across 10 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Cryptography(2 mappings)

27010-10.1Cryptographic Protection2 targets
→CPG-3.ALog Collection
→CPG-3.BSecure Log Storage

Clause 9-10: Access Control and Cryptography(4 mappings)

27010-10.1Cryptographic Protection2 targets
→CPG-3.ALog Collection
→CPG-3.BSecure Log Storage
27010-9.1Access Control to Shared Information
→CPG-8.ANetwork Segmentation
27010-9.2Authentication of Sources
→CPG-8.ANetwork Segmentation

Clause 11-13: Physical, Operations, and Communications Security(3 mappings)

27010-12.2Protection from malware
→CPG-7.BIncident Response Plans
27010-13.1Communications Security2 targets
→CPG-1.DRevoking Credentials for Departing Employees
→CPG-8.ANetwork Segmentation

Communications(2 mappings)

27010-13.1Communications Security2 targets
→CPG-1.DRevoking Credentials for Departing Employees
→CPG-8.ANetwork Segmentation

Incidents(3 mappings)

27010-15.1Incident Management3 targets
→CPG-6.AVendor and Supplier Incident Reporting
→CPG-6.AVendor and Supplier Incident Reporting
→CPG-6.BSupply Chain Incident Reporting

Clause 14-16: System Development, Supplier Relations, and Incident Management(5 mappings)

27010-15.1Incident Management3 targets
→CPG-6.AVendor and Supplier Incident Reporting
→CPG-6.AVendor and Supplier Incident Reporting
→CPG-6.BSupply Chain Incident Reporting
27010-16.1Continuity of Sharing2 targets
→CPG-7.AIncident Reporting
→CPG-7.DIncident Response Testing

Continuity(1 mappings)

27010-16.1Continuity of Sharing
→CPG-7.AIncident Reporting

+7 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 718 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

Other ISO/IEC 27010:2015 comparisons

ISO/IEC 27010:2015 vs ISO 27001:202210 mappingsISO/IEC 27010:2015 vs NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts8 mappingsISO/IEC 27010:2015 vs ISO 28001:2007 Supply Chain Security Management8 mappingsISO/IEC 27010:2015 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 58 mappingsISO/IEC 27010:2015 vs Oman National Cybersecurity Framework7 mappingsISO/IEC 27010:2015 vs PAS 1192-5:2015 - Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments7 mappingsISO/IEC 27010:2015 vs NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security7 mappingsISO/IEC 27010:2015 vs NIS2 Directive7 mappings

Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.014 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.014 mappingsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.013 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.013 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.013 mappingsNIST SP 800-124 Revision 2 - Guidelines for Managing the Security of Mobile Devices vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.013 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.012 mappingsISO/IEC 27011:2024 vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.012 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (330K+)
  • ✓ 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 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?

ISO/IEC 27010:2015 has 28 controls across its framework, while CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 15 overlapping controls (29% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance, where 6 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls have no direct CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO/IEC 27010:2015 and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?

Of 28 total ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls, 15 map directly to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls — representing 29% coverage. The remaining 31 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 27010:2015 to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?

31 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls have no direct equivalent in CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance with 6 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/IEC 27010:2015 and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance (6 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.