NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsAML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)
See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia). 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:
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) with 7% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 99 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
GV - Govern(4 mappings)
ID - Identify(1 mappings)
PR - Protect(2 mappings)
A NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls your existing NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 7% in the header counts how many NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons
Other AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)?
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) covers 39 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (7% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 24 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)?
Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 7 map directly to AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls, representing 7% coverage. The remaining 99 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)?
99 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia). The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 24 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)?
The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (24 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.