Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsISO 27002:2022

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to ISO 27002:2022. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

299
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
97%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which ISO 27002:2022 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to ISO 27002:2022 with 97% coverage across 103 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 3 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 299 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

DE - Detect(20 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities2 targets
iso-27002-2022::5.25Assessment and decision on information security events
iso-27002-2022::5.27Learning from information security incidents
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03Information is correlated from multiple sources
iso-27002-2022::8.16Monitoring activities
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04Estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
iso-27002-2022::5.25Assessment and decision on information security events
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-06Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff4 targets
iso-27002-2022::5.26Response to information security incidents
iso-27002-2022::5.28Collection of evidence
iso-27002-2022::5.5Contact with authorities
iso-27002-2022::6.8Information security event reporting
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis
iso-27002-2022::5.7Threat intelligence
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria2 targets
iso-27002-2022::5.25Assessment and decision on information security events
iso-27002-2022::5.29Information security during disruption
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events4 targets
iso-27002-2022::5.28Collection of evidence
iso-27002-2022::8.16Monitoring activities
iso-27002-2022::8.20Networks security
iso-27002-2022::8.21Security of network services
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-02The physical environment is monitored to find potentially adverse events
iso-27002-2022::7.4Physical security monitoring
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-03Personnel activity and technology usage are monitored to find potentially adverse events3 targets
iso-27002-2022::5.10Acceptable use of information and other associated assets
iso-27002-2022::8.16Monitoring activities
iso-27002-2022::8.18Use of privileged utility programs
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-06External service provider activities are monitored to find potentially adverse events
iso-27002-2022::5.21Managing information security in the ICT supply chain

+279 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 ISO 27002:2022 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO 27002:2022 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 ISO 27002:2022
63.4%

59 of 93 ISO 27002:2022 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 34 are genuine gaps.

67.6%Organizational controls
61.8%Technological controls
57.1%Physical controls
62.5%People controls
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 199 candidate mappings were examined and 107 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: 5.1 Policies for information security

An established cybersecurity policy set based on context is the same policy requirement.

Grounded in NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01 Cybersecurity risk management policy is established based on context and strategy. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: 5.10 Acceptable use of information and other associated assets

Requires rules for acceptable use, and procedures for handling information and its associated assets, to be identified, documented and put into effect.

Every one of the 59 evidenced controls and 34 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

ISO 27002:2022 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
61.3%

65 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27002:2022. 41 are genuine gaps.

86.4%PR - Protect
46.4%GV - Govern
57.1%ID - Identify
81.8%DE - Detect
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 194 candidate mappings were examined and 89 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

Assessment of security events to decide their nature is the analysis required.

Grounded in iso-27002-2022::5.25 Assessment and decision on information security events. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04 Estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood

Estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: DE - Detect.

Every one of the 65 evidenced controls and 41 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 ISO 27002:2022
$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 97% 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 ISO 27002:2022 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 (309K+)
  • 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 ISO 27002:2022?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while ISO 27002:2022 covers 93 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 103 overlapping controls (97% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 3 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct ISO 27002:2022 equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and ISO 27002:2022?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 103 map directly to ISO 27002:2022 controls, representing 97% coverage. The remaining 3 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 ISO 27002:2022?

3 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27002:2022. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 3 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 ISO 27002:2022?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (3 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.