MARS-EvsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements
See exactly how MARS-E controls map to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. 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:
MARS-E maps to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements with 88% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 MARS-E controls identifies 1 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Scope and Authority - MARS-E v2.0.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 23 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Access Control and Identity Authentication - MARS-E v2.0(4 mappings)
Audit Accountability and Continuous Monitoring - MARS-E v2.0(1 mappings)
Contingency Media Protection System Integrity - MARS-E v2.0(5 mappings)
Cross-Program Coordination - MARS-E v2.0(5 mappings)
Incident Response and Breach Notification - MARS-E v2.0(4 mappings)
Security Control Catalog NIST 800-53 Moderate Baseline - MARS-E v2.0(1 mappings)
+3 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
A MARS-E to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls your existing MARS-E 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 88% in the header counts how many MARS-E controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements 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 MARS-E comparisons
Other NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
- ✓ 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 MARS-E and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?
MARS-E has 8 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (88% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Scope and Authority - MARS-E v2.0, where 1 MARS-E controls have no direct NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements equivalent.
How many controls map between MARS-E and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?
Of 8 total MARS-E controls, 7 map directly to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls, representing 88% coverage. The remaining 1 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping MARS-E to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?
1 MARS-E controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. The highest concentration of gaps is in Scope and Authority - MARS-E v2.0 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 MARS-E and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?
The domain with the highest gap count is Scope and Authority - MARS-E v2.0 (1 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.