TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

23
Controls Mapped
83
Gaps Found
18%
Coverage

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 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) with 18% coverage across 19 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 87 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 23 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

DE - Detect(3 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet the defined incident criteria
→AWWA-1.1Security Policy and Governance
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→AWWA-4.4Audit Logging and Monitoring
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09Computing hardware and software, runtime environments, and their data are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→AWWA-4.1Malware Protection

GV - Govern(3 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01The organizational mission is understood and informs cybersecurity risk management
→AWWA-1.1Security Policy and Governance
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-07Strategic opportunities (i.e., positive risks) are characterized and are included in organizational cybersecurity risk discussions
→AWWA-1.2Risk Assessment
NIST-CSF-GV.SC-04Suppliers are known and prioritized by criticality
→AWWA-G430-13Supply Chain and Vendor Risk

ID - Identify(3 mappings)

NIST-CSF-ID.RA-01Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded2 targets
→AWWA-1.2Risk Assessment
→AWWA-4.2Patch Management
NIST-CSF-ID.RA-09The authenticity and integrity of hardware and software are assessed prior to acquisition and use
→AWWA-1.2Risk Assessment

PR - Protect(11 mappings)

NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed by the organization
→AWWA-2.2Authentication Mechanisms
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions
→AWWA-2.2Authentication Mechanisms
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03Users, services, and hardware are authenticated
→AWWA-2.2Authentication Mechanisms
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of least privilege and separation of duties4 targets
→AWWA-1.1Security Policy and Governance
→AWWA-1.3Security Awareness and Training
→AWWA-2.1User Access Management
→AWWA-3.2Remote Access Security
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-06Physical access to assets is managed, monitored, and enforced commensurate with risk
→AWWA-2.4Physical Access Controls
NIST-CSF-PR.AT-01Personnel are provided with awareness and training so that they possess the knowledge and skills to perform general tasks with cybersecurity risks in mind
→AWWA-1.3Security Awareness and Training
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected
→AWWA-3.4Encryption and Data Protection
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-01Networks and environments are protected from unauthorized logical access and usage
→AWWA-3.1Network Segmentation

+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

Coverage crosswalk

A NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) crosswalk, built to order

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) 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.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)
Not published yet

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.

AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
Not published yet

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.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) (built to order)
$299
per framework pair, one time
  • 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 18% 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 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) 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

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5106 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FedRAMP Moderate104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FedRAMP High104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs SOC 2104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Australian Information Security Manual103 mappings

Other AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) comparisons

South Korea ISMS-P vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)13 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)12 mappingsSLSA vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)11 mappingsSIG (Shared Assessments) vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)11 mappingsPTES vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)11 mappingsOWASP SAMM vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)11 mappingsOWASP MASVS vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)11 mappingsOpenSSF Scorecard vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)11 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 686 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$149/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 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) covers 37 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 19 overlapping controls (18% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 25 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 19 map directly to AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) controls, representing 18% coverage. The remaining 87 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 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)?

87 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association). The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 25 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 AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (25 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.