Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsNIST SP 800-66 Rev 2

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

173
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
76%
Coverage

Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2 with 76% coverage across 81 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 25 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 173 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ 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 understood
164.308(b)(1)Business Associate Contracts and Other Arrangements (Standard)
NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements are understood2 targets
164.308(a)(8)Evaluation (Standard)
164.316(a)Policies and Procedures (Standard)

+153 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

A NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2 crosswalk, built to order

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2 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 NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2
Not published yet

This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.

If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.

NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
Not published yet

This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.

If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2 (built to order)
$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 76% 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 800-66 Rev 2 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 NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2 covers 65 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 81 overlapping controls (76% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 9 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2 equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 81 map directly to NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2 controls, representing 76% coverage. The remaining 25 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 800-66 Rev 2?

25 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-66 Rev 2. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 9 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 800-66 Rev 2?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (9 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.