Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsNIST SP 800-172

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to NIST SP 800-172. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

95
Controls Mapped
11
Gaps Found
59%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which NIST SP 800-172 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to NIST SP 800-172 with 59% coverage across 63 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 43 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 95 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

DE - Detect(19 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities3 targets
3.11.2eThreat Hunting
3.11.3eAdvanced Automation and Analytics Capabilities
3.6.1eEstablish Security Operations Center (SOC)
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03Information is correlated from multiple sources2 targets
3.11.3eAdvanced Automation and Analytics Capabilities
3.14.6eUse Threat Indicator Information for Detection
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
3.11.3eAdvanced Automation and Analytics Capabilities
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-06Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff and tools
3.6.1eEstablish Security Operations Center (SOC)
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and other contextual information are integrated into the analysis3 targets
3.11.1eThreat-Aware Risk Assessment
3.11.2eThreat Hunting
3.14.6eUse Threat Indicator Information for Detection
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet the defined incident criteria
3.6.2eEstablish and Maintain a Cyber Incident Response Team
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events3 targets
3.11.2eThreat Hunting
3.14.2eMonitor Organizational Systems with Specialized Capabilities
3.6.1eEstablish Security Operations Center (SOC)
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-03Personnel activity and technology usage are monitored to find potentially adverse events
3.9.2eInsider Threat Program
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-06External service provider activities and services are monitored to find potentially adverse events
3.11.6eSupply Chain Risk Assessment, Response, and Monitoring
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09Computing hardware and software, runtime environments, and their data are monitored to find potentially adverse events3 targets
3.14.1eVerify Integrity of Security Critical Software and Firmware
3.14.2eMonitor Organizational Systems with Specialized Capabilities
3.4.2eAutomated Detection and Remediation of Unauthorized Software

Govern(1 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.OV-03Organizational cybersecurity risk management performance is evaluated and reviewed for adjustments needed
3.12.1ePenetration Testing by Independent Agents

+75 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 NIST SP 800-172 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST SP 800-172 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 NIST SP 800-172 lands at 48.6%, while NIST SP 800-172 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 lands at 30.2%, 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 NIST SP 800-172, the other asks the reverse.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into NIST SP 800-172
48.6%

17 of 35 NIST SP 800-172 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 18 are genuine gaps.

85.7%RA
42.9%SI
66.7%CM
100%PS
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 59 candidate mappings were examined and 3 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: 3.1.3e Employ Secure Information Transfer Solutions

Both require authorized communication and data flows to be defined and maintained.

Grounded in NIST-CSF-ID.AM-03 Representations of authorized network communication and data flows are maintained. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: 3.1.1e Dual Authorization for Sensitive System Operations

Employ dual authorization to execute critical or sensitive system and organizational operations affecting CUI.

Every one of the 17 evidenced controls and 18 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIST SP 800-172 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
30.2%

32 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST SP 800-172. 74 are genuine gaps.

52.4%ID - Identify
40.9%PR - Protect
63.6%DE - Detect
14.3%GV - Govern
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 77 candidate mappings were examined and 3 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

A 24/7 security operations centre performs the continuous event analysis this subcategory requires.

Grounded in 3.6.1e Establish Security Operations Center (SOC). 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 32 evidenced controls and 74 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 NIST SP 800-172
$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 59% 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 NIST SP 800-172 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 NIST SP 800-172?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-172 covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 63 overlapping controls (59% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 17 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct NIST SP 800-172 equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and NIST SP 800-172?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 63 map directly to NIST SP 800-172 controls, representing 59% coverage. The remaining 43 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 NIST SP 800-172?

43 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-172. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 17 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 NIST SP 800-172?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (17 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.