TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsBelgium CyberFundamentals

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

46
Controls Mapped
60
Gaps Found
30%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to Belgium CyberFundamentals with 30% coverage across 32 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 74 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 704 frameworks | 359K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 46 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 359K+ mappings across 704 frameworks.

DE - Detect(3 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities
→BE-CF-29Audit record review and analysis
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events2 targets
→BE-CF-12Network monitoring and defense
→BE-CF-17Continuous monitoring strategy

GV - Govern(6 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01Organizational context for cybersecurity risk management is understood
→BE-CF-34Business environment
NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements are understood
→BE-CF-44NIS2 alignment
NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01Cybersecurity risk management policy is established based on context and strategy
→BE-CF-35Cybersecurity governance and policy
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-01Risk management objectives are established and agreed upon
→BE-CF-43Assurance level selection and scoping
NIST-CSF-GV.RR-01Organizational leadership is responsible for cybersecurity risk management
→BE-CF-35Cybersecurity governance and policy
NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01Cybersecurity supply chain risk management program is established
→BE-CF-36Supply chain risk management

ID - Identify(7 mappings)

NIST-CSF-ID.AM-01Inventories of hardware managed by the organization are maintained
→BE-CF-26System component inventory
NIST-CSF-ID.AM-03Representations of authorized network communication and data flows are maintained
→BE-CF-33Asset management and data flow mapping
NIST-CSF-ID.AM-05Assets are prioritized based on classification, criticality, resources, and impact
→BE-CF-15Security categorization
NIST-CSF-ID.IM-01Improvements are identified from security test and exercise results
→BE-CF-22Lessons learned and improvement
NIST-CSF-ID.RA-01Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded2 targets
→BE-CF-13Risk assessment procedures
→BE-CF-14Vulnerability scanning and management
NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums
→BE-CF-16Threat intelligence integration

PR - Protect(4 mappings)

NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed
→BE-CF-01Account management and provisioning
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions
→BE-CF-06Identity proofing and verification
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03Users, services, and hardware are authenticated2 targets
→BE-CF-03Multi-factor authentication requirements
→BE-CF-11Session management controls

+26 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 704 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 ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices32 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ASEAN Data Management Framework25 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 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 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs TISAX - Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange19 mappings

Other Belgium CyberFundamentals comparisons

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs Belgium CyberFundamentals18 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs Belgium CyberFundamentals18 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) vs Belgium CyberFundamentals17 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs Belgium CyberFundamentals15 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs Belgium CyberFundamentals14 mappingsAPI 1164 vs Belgium CyberFundamentals13 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs Belgium CyberFundamentals13 mappingsISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs Belgium CyberFundamentals11 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 704 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 704 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (359K+)
  • ✓ 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 Belgium CyberFundamentals?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while Belgium CyberFundamentals covers 44 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 32 overlapping controls (30% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 22 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct Belgium CyberFundamentals equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and Belgium CyberFundamentals?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 32 map directly to Belgium CyberFundamentals controls — representing 30% coverage. The remaining 74 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 Belgium CyberFundamentals?

74 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in Belgium CyberFundamentals. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 22 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 Belgium CyberFundamentals?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (22 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.