NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsAustralia My Health Records Act 2012
See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to Australia My Health Records Act 2012. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to Australia My Health Records Act 2012 with 35% coverage across 37 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 69 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in ID - Identify.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 46 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
DE - Detect(5 mappings)
GV - Govern(15 mappings)
+26 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
The NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to Australia My Health Records Act 2012 crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which Australia My Health Records Act 2012 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.
18 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Australia My Health Records Act 2012. 88 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Detected access anomalies must be investigated, not merely recorded.
Grounded in MYHR-SEC-3 Audit logging and access monitoring. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Information is correlated from multiple sources. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: DE - Detect.
Every one of the 18 evidenced controls and 88 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
- 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 35% 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 Australia My Health Records Act 2012 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 Australia My Health Records Act 2012 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 (309K+)
- ✓ 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 Australia My Health Records Act 2012?
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while Australia My Health Records Act 2012 covers 40 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 37 overlapping controls (35% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in ID - Identify, where 17 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct Australia My Health Records Act 2012 equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and Australia My Health Records Act 2012?
Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 37 map directly to Australia My Health Records Act 2012 controls, representing 35% coverage. The remaining 69 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 Australia My Health Records Act 2012?
69 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in Australia My Health Records Act 2012. The highest concentration of gaps is in ID - Identify with 17 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 Australia My Health Records Act 2012?
The domain with the highest gap count is ID - Identify (17 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.