ISO/IEC 30111:2019vsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0
See exactly how ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls map to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO/IEC 30111:2019 maps to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 with 36% coverage across 8 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 22 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls identifies 14 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 22 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 14 of 14 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Clause 1-4: Introduction(7 mappings)
Clause 5: Vulnerability Handling Policy and Organization(4 mappings)
Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process(1 mappings)
Clause 7: Vendor Process Management(1 mappings)
Clause 8: Post-Release Activities(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 30111:2019 comparisons
Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 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/IEC 30111:2019 and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
ISO/IEC 30111:2019 has 22 controls across its framework, while CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 covers 40 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (36% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process, where 4 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls have no direct CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO/IEC 30111:2019 and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
Of 22 total ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls, 8 map directly to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls — representing 36% coverage. The remaining 14 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 30111:2019 to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
14 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls have no direct equivalent in CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process 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/IEC 30111:2019 and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process (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.