TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsECB TIBER-EU Framework

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

17
Controls Mapped
86
Gaps Found
12%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to ECB TIBER-EU Framework with 12% coverage across 12 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 103 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 91 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 103 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

DE - Detect(4 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis3 targets
→TIBER-0.1Sector Threat Landscape Assessment
→TIBER-1.4Provider Procurement
→TIBER-2.1Targeted Threat Intelligence
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria
→TIBER-1.3Scope Definition

GV - Govern(4 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.RM-03Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk
→TIBER-1.5Risk Management
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction for cybersecurity risk management is established
→TIBER-1.5Risk Management
NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01Cybersecurity supply chain risk management program is established2 targets
→TIBER-1.4Provider Procurement
→TIBER-1.5Risk Management

ID - Identify(5 mappings)

NIST-CSF-ID.AM-04Inventories of services provided by suppliers are maintained
→TIBER-1.4Provider Procurement
NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums3 targets
→TIBER-0.1Sector Threat Landscape Assessment
→TIBER-1.4Provider Procurement
→TIBER-2.1Targeted Threat Intelligence
NIST-CSF-ID.RA-10Critical suppliers are assessed on the basis of their risk
→TIBER-1.4Provider Procurement

PR - Protect(4 mappings)

NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed
→TIBER-1.3Scope Definition
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-10The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected
→TIBER-3.3Replay and Purple Teaming
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-03Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations
→TIBER-3.3Replay and Purple Teaming
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-04Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained
→TIBER-3.3Replay and Purple Teaming

Related Comparisons

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security22 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange21 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs CSA CCM v421 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)20 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ISO 27001:202220 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)20 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) Cyber Risk Management Code of Conduct19 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation19 mappings

Other ECB TIBER-EU Framework comparisons

HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs ECB TIBER-EU Framework7 mappingsO-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) vs ECB TIBER-EU Framework7 mappingsBermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) Cyber Risk Management Code of Conduct vs ECB TIBER-EU Framework6 mappingsBS 65000:2014 — Guidance on Organizational Resilience vs ECB TIBER-EU Framework6 mappingsFFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) vs ECB TIBER-EU Framework6 mappingsCSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) vs ECB TIBER-EU Framework6 mappingsRBI Cybersecurity Framework for Banks vs ECB TIBER-EU Framework6 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs ECB TIBER-EU Framework6 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 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 ECB TIBER-EU Framework?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 103 controls across its framework, while ECB TIBER-EU Framework covers 17 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 12 overlapping controls (12% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 25 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct ECB TIBER-EU Framework equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and ECB TIBER-EU Framework?

Of 103 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 12 map directly to ECB TIBER-EU Framework controls — representing 12% coverage. The remaining 91 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 ECB TIBER-EU Framework?

91 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in ECB TIBER-EU Framework. 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 ECB TIBER-EU Framework?

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.