TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsASEAN Data Management Framework

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to ASEAN Data Management Framework. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

42
Controls Mapped
64
Gaps Found
24%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to ASEAN Data Management Framework with 24% coverage across 25 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 81 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 726 frameworks | 463K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 42 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 463K+ mappings across 726 frameworks.

Govern(3 mappings)

GV.OV-01Risk management strategy outcomes are reviewed
→ADMF-6.2Review controls associated with each category
GV.OV-02Risk management strategy is reviewed for coverage
→ADMF-6.3Review categories assigned to datasets
GV.OV-03Risk management performance is evaluated
→ADMF-1.4Risk management function responsibilities

DE - Detect(1 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→ADMF-6.1Define monitoring and measurement scope

GV - Govern(15 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01Organizational context for cybersecurity risk management is understood
→ADMF-2.2Define objectives, scope and considerations (what and why)
NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01Cybersecurity risk management policy is established based on context and strategy3 targets
→ADMF-2.1Leadership commitment in policy (who)
→ADMF-2.3Establish the data management approach (how)
→ADMF-2.4Embed data management in corporate governance and policy
NIST-CSF-GV.PO-02Policy is reviewed, updated, communicated, and enforced2 targets
→ADMF-2.4Embed data management in corporate governance and policy
→ADMF-6.5Update policies, procedures and processes
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-01Risk management objectives are established and agreed upon2 targets
→ADMF-1.4Risk management function responsibilities
→ADMF-2.2Define objectives, scope and considerations (what and why)
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-02Risk appetite and risk tolerance statements are established
→ADMF-1.5Executive direction and risk appetite
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction for cybersecurity risk management is established
→ADMF-1.5Executive direction and risk appetite
NIST-CSF-GV.RR-01Organizational leadership is responsible for cybersecurity risk management2 targets
→ADMF-1.1Establish data management governance functions
→ADMF-2.1Leadership commitment in policy (who)
NIST-CSF-GV.RR-02Roles and responsibilities for cybersecurity risk management are established3 targets
→ADMF-1.1Establish data management governance functions
→ADMF-1.2Data management function responsibilities
→ADMF-1.3Business process function responsibilities

ID - Identify(1 mappings)

NIST-CSF-ID.AM-05Assets are prioritized based on classification, criticality, resources, and impact
→ADMF-3.3Apply overarching categorisation considerations

+22 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 726 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

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 Azure Security Benchmark22 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 HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)20 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)20 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF)19 mappings

Other ASEAN Data Management Framework comparisons

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs ASEAN Data Management Framework23 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 726 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 726 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (463K+)
  • ✓ 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 ASEAN Data Management Framework?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while ASEAN Data Management Framework covers 27 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 25 overlapping controls (24% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 20 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct ASEAN Data Management Framework equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and ASEAN Data Management Framework?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 25 map directly to ASEAN Data Management Framework controls — representing 24% coverage. The remaining 81 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 ASEAN Data Management Framework?

81 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in ASEAN Data Management Framework. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 20 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 ASEAN Data Management Framework?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (20 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.