TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsAzure Security Benchmark

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to Azure Security Benchmark. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

26
Controls Mapped
80
Gaps Found
21%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to Azure Security Benchmark with 21% coverage across 22 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 84 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 26 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 463K+ mappings across 726 frameworks.

DE - Detect(3 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria
→ASB-01Shared responsibility model definition
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→LT-3Enable Logging for Investigation
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09Computing hardware and software are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→ES-2Use Modern Anti-Malware Software

GV - Govern(2 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.RM-07Opportunities for improvements are identified from risk assessments
→ASB-03Cloud risk assessment
NIST-CSF-GV.RR-02Roles and responsibilities for cybersecurity risk management are established
→GS-1Align Organisation Roles, Responsibilities and Accountabilities

ID - Identify(3 mappings)

NIST-CSF-ID.AM-02Inventories of software, services, and systems managed by the organization are maintained
→AM-2Use Only Approved Services
NIST-CSF-ID.IM-04Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans are established and maintained
→ASB-22Incident response in cloud
NIST-CSF-ID.RA-09Integrity and accuracy of risk assessment results are verified
→ASB-03Cloud risk assessment

PR - Protect(12 mappings)

NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed2 targets
→ASB-07Multi-factor authentication for cloud
→IM-1Use Centralised Identity and Authentication System
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions
→ASB-07Multi-factor authentication for cloud
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03Users, services, and hardware are authenticated
→IM-6Use Strong Authentication Controls
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed2 targets
→ASB-01Shared responsibility model definition
→ASB-08Privileged access in cloud environments
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected
→DP-4Encrypt Data at Rest by Default
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-02The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected
→DP-3Encrypt Sensitive Data in Transit
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-11Backups of data are created, protected, maintained, and tested
→BR-1Ensure Regular Automated Backups
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-01Networks and environments are protected from unauthorized access
→NS-1Establish Network Segmentation Boundaries
NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied2 targets
→ASB-19Image and template hardening
→ASB-20Cloud configuration management

+6 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 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 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 Azure Security Benchmark comparisons

NIST SP 800-145 vs Azure Security Benchmark20 mappingsMTCS (Singapore) vs Azure Security Benchmark20 mappingsISO 27017 vs Azure Security Benchmark20 mappingsNIST SP 800-146 vs Azure Security Benchmark20 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs Azure Security Benchmark20 mappingsNIST SP 800-190 vs Azure Security Benchmark20 mappingsISO 27018 vs Azure Security Benchmark20 mappingsNIST SP 800-144 vs Azure Security Benchmark20 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 Azure Security Benchmark?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while Azure Security Benchmark covers 54 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 22 overlapping controls (21% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 26 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct Azure Security Benchmark equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and Azure Security Benchmark?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 22 map directly to Azure Security Benchmark controls — representing 21% coverage. The remaining 84 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 Azure Security Benchmark?

84 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in Azure Security Benchmark. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 26 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 Azure Security Benchmark?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (26 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.