TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

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.

7
Controls Mapped
99
Gaps Found
7%
Coverage

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 | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

GV - Govern(4 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.RM-03Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk
→AMLCTF-82Part A Compliance
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction for cybersecurity risk management is established
→AMLCTF-82Part A Compliance
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-07Opportunities for improvements are identified from risk assessments
→AMLCTF-PartA-RiskAssessML/TF Risk Assessment
NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01Cybersecurity supply chain risk management program is established
→AMLCTF-82Part A Compliance

ID - Identify(1 mappings)

NIST-CSF-ID.RA-09Integrity and accuracy of risk assessment results are verified
→AMLCTF-PartA-RiskAssessML/TF Risk Assessment

PR - Protect(2 mappings)

NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed
→AMLCTF-35Identity Verification Standard
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions
→AMLCTF-35Identity Verification Standard

Related Comparisons

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ISO 27001:202282 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Belgium CyberFundamentals32 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices32 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ASEAN Data Management Framework25 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security22 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Azure Security Benchmark22 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF)19 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)19 mappings

Other AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) comparisons

Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) vs AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)27 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)3 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)3 mappingsMTCS (Singapore) vs AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)3 mappingsFedRAMP Rev 5 vs AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)3 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)3 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)3 mappingsSSAE 18 - Attestation Standards (SOC Reporting) vs AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)3 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 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

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.