TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End CommunicationsvsSOC 2

See exactly how ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications controls map to SOC 2. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

7
Controls Mapped
6
Gaps Found
23%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications maps to SOC 2 with 23% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 13 ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications controls identifies 10 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in X.805 Threats + Application.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 13 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

X.805 Security Dimension 1 - Access Control(1 mappings)

X805-Dim1-Access-Control-RBAC-Authorization-Resources-Network-Elements-Services-ApplicationsITU-T X.805 Security Dimension 1 - Access Control + Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) + Authorization + Resources + Network Elements + Services + Applications + Access Limitations + Authorized Personnel + Discretionary + Mandatory Access Control
→SOC2-CC6.3Role-based access and least privilege are enforced

X.805 Security Dimension 7 - Availability(3 mappings)

X805-Dim7-Availability-Network-Resources-Information-Authorized-Access-No-Service-DenialITU-T X.805 Security Dimension 7 - Availability + Network Resources + Information Accessible to Authorized Users + Denial-of-Service Prevention + Resilience + Redundancy + Disaster Recovery + Business Continuity + DDoS Mitigation3 targets
→SOC2-A1.1Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments
→SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability
→SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures

X.805 Security Dimension 8 - Privacy(3 mappings)

X805-Dim8-Privacy-Identification-Network-Activity-Personal-Information-ConfidentialityITU-T X.805 Security Dimension 8 - Privacy + Identification of Network Activity + Personal Information Confidentiality + Subscriber Anonymity + Pseudonymity + Anti-Tracking + Location Privacy + Data Minimization + GDPR/CCPA Alignment3 targets
→SOC2-P3.1Personal information is collected consistent with privacy commitments
→SOC2-P4.3Personal information is securely disposed of
→SOC2-P6.1Personal information is disclosed to third parties only as committed

Related Comparisons

Other ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications comparisons

ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications vs NIST Privacy Framework4 mappingsITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications vs ISO 27001:20224 mappingsITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications vs Oman National Cybersecurity Framework3 mappingsITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications vs NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)3 mappingsITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications vs MARS-E3 mappingsITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications vs SSAE 18 - Attestation Standards (SOC Reporting)3 mappingsITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges3 mappingsITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification3 mappings

Other SOC 2 comparisons

AICPA SOC 3 vs SOC 231 mappingsC5 (Germany) vs SOC 222 mappingsSSAE 18 - Attestation Standards (SOC Reporting) vs SOC 213 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs SOC 211 mappingsISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs SOC 29 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs SOC 29 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs SOC 28 mappingsISO/IEC 38500:2024 - Governance of IT vs SOC 28 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 (332K+)
  • ✓ 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 ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications and SOC 2?

ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications has 13 controls across its framework, while SOC 2 covers 54 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 3 overlapping controls (23% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in X.805 Threats + Application, where 1 ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications controls have no direct SOC 2 equivalent.

How many controls map between ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications and SOC 2?

Of 13 total ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications controls, 3 map directly to SOC 2 controls — representing 23% coverage. The remaining 10 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications to SOC 2?

10 ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications controls have no direct equivalent in SOC 2. The highest concentration of gaps is in X.805 Threats + Application 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 ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications and SOC 2?

The domain with the highest gap count is X.805 Threats + Application (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.