Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsHIPAA Security Rule

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

208
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
79%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which HIPAA Security Rule controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to HIPAA Security Rule with 79% coverage across 84 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 22 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 208 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

DE - Detect(16 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities2 targets
164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)Information System Activity Review (Required)
164.308(a)(5)(ii)(C)Log-in Monitoring (Addressable)
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03Information is correlated from multiple sources2 targets
164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)Information System Activity Review (Required)
164.312(b)Audit Controls (Standard)
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04Estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
164.308(a)(6)(ii)Response and Reporting (Required)
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-06Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff2 targets
164.308(a)(5)(ii)(B)Protection from Malicious Software (Addressable)
164.308(a)(6)(ii)Response and Reporting (Required)
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis2 targets
164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A)Risk Analysis (Required)
164.308(a)(6)(ii)Response and Reporting (Required)
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria
164.308(a)(6)(ii)Response and Reporting (Required)
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-02The physical environment is monitored to find potentially adverse events
164.310(a)(2)(ii)Facility Security Plan (Addressable)
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-03Personnel activity and technology usage are monitored to find potentially adverse events2 targets
164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)Information System Activity Review (Required)
164.308(a)(5)(ii)(C)Log-in Monitoring (Addressable)
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-06External service provider activities are monitored to find potentially adverse events
164.308(b)(1)Business Associate Contracts and Other Arrangements (Standard)
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09Computing hardware and software are monitored to find potentially adverse events2 targets
164.308(a)(5)(ii)(B)Protection from Malicious Software (Addressable)
164.312(b)Audit Controls (Standard)

GV - Govern(4 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01Organizational context for cybersecurity risk management is understood
164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A)Risk Analysis (Required)
NIST-CSF-GV.OC-02Internal and external stakeholders are understood2 targets
164.308(b)(1)Business Associate Contracts and Other Arrangements (Standard)
164.314(a)(1)Business Associate Contracts or Other Arrangements (Standard)
NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements are understood
164.306Security Standards: General Rules

+188 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

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to HIPAA Security Rule crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which HIPAA Security Rule 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.

Coverage does not run both ways. NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into HIPAA Security Rule lands at 67.2%, while HIPAA Security Rule into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 lands at 40.6%, on the same two control sets. That is not a rounding difference. It is the whole reason these are two separate reports: one asks what your NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 evidence buys you for HIPAA Security Rule, the other asks the reverse.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into HIPAA Security Rule
67.2%

45 of 67 HIPAA Security Rule controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 22 are genuine gaps.

81.2%Administrative
75%Technical
58.3%Physical
40%Policies and Procedures
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 158 candidate mappings were examined and 95 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: 164.308(a)(1)(i) Security Management Process (Standard)

An established cybersecurity risk management policy is this security management process.

Grounded in NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01 Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is established based on organizational context, cybersecurity strategy, and priorities and is communicated and enforced. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: 164.306 Security Standards: General Rules

Covered entities and business associates must ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all electronic protected health information (ePHI) they create, receive, maintain, or transmit; protect against reasonably anticipated...

Every one of the 45 evidenced controls and 22 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

HIPAA Security Rule into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
40.6%

43 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for HIPAA Security Rule. 63 are genuine gaps.

42.9%GV - Govern
50%PR - Protect
42.9%ID - Identify
38.5%RS - Respond
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 109 candidate mappings were examined and 36 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

Regular review of audit logs and access reports analyses adverse events.

Grounded in 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D) Information System Activity Review (Required). Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03 Information is correlated from multiple sources

Information is correlated from multiple sources. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: DE - Detect.

Every one of the 43 evidenced controls and 63 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to HIPAA Security Rule
$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 79% 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 HIPAA Security Rule 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.

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 →

What are the key differences between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and HIPAA Security Rule?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while HIPAA Security Rule covers 67 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 84 overlapping controls (79% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 7 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct HIPAA Security Rule equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and HIPAA Security Rule?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 84 map directly to HIPAA Security Rule controls, representing 79% coverage. The remaining 22 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 HIPAA Security Rule?

22 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in HIPAA Security Rule. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 7 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 HIPAA Security Rule?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (7 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

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.