TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsO-RAN WG11 Security Specification

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to O-RAN WG11 Security Specification. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

17
Controls Mapped
89
Gaps Found
12%
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 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification with 12% coverage across 13 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 93 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

DE - Detect(4 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and other contextual information are integrated into the analysis
→ORANWG11-1O-RAN Threat Model, Risk Management, and Security Architecture
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet the defined incident criteria3 targets
→ORANWG11-2O-RAN Interface Security: E2, A1, O1, O2, Open Fronthaul
→ORANWG11-3Cryptography, TLS, SSH, IPsec, and PKI Lifecycle Management
→ORANWG11-6Security Test Specifications, Certification, and Conformance

GV - Govern(3 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.RM-03Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes
→ORANWG11-1O-RAN Threat Model, Risk Management, and Security Architecture
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction that describes appropriate risk response options is established and communicated
→ORANWG11-1O-RAN Threat Model, Risk Management, and Security Architecture
NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders
→ORANWG11-1O-RAN Threat Model, Risk Management, and Security Architecture

ID - Identify(1 mappings)

NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums and sources
→ORANWG11-1O-RAN Threat Model, Risk Management, and Security Architecture

PR - Protect(9 mappings)

NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed by the organization
→ORANWG11-2O-RAN Interface Security: E2, A1, O1, O2, Open Fronthaul
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions
→ORANWG11-2O-RAN Interface Security: E2, A1, O1, O2, Open Fronthaul
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of least privilege and separation of duties3 targets
→ORANWG11-2O-RAN Interface Security: E2, A1, O1, O2, Open Fronthaul
→ORANWG11-3Cryptography, TLS, SSH, IPsec, and PKI Lifecycle Management
→ORANWG11-6Security Test Specifications, Certification, and Conformance
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-10The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected
→ORANWG11-2O-RAN Interface Security: E2, A1, O1, O2, Open Fronthaul
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-03Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations
→ORANWG11-2O-RAN Interface Security: E2, A1, O1, O2, Open Fronthaul
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-04Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained
→ORANWG11-2O-RAN Interface Security: E2, A1, O1, O2, Open Fronthaul
NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06Secure software development practices are integrated, and their performance is monitored throughout the software development life cycle
→ORANWG11-8Supply Chain, Secure Development Lifecycle, Privacy, Multi-Vendor Trust
Coverage crosswalk

A NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to O-RAN WG11 Security Specification crosswalk, built to order

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which O-RAN WG11 Security Specification 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 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification
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.

O-RAN WG11 Security Specification 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 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification (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 12% 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 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification 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.

Related Comparisons

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5106 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FedRAMP Moderate104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FedRAMP High104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs SOC 2104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Australian Information Security Manual103 mappings

Other O-RAN WG11 Security Specification comparisons

OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification6 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification6 mappingsOpen Banking Security vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappingsSingapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8) vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappingsFFIEC IT Examination Handbook vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappingsOWASP MASVS vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappingsOWASP ASVS vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappings

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 →

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 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while O-RAN WG11 Security Specification covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 13 overlapping controls (12% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 25 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct O-RAN WG11 Security Specification equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and O-RAN WG11 Security Specification?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 13 map directly to O-RAN WG11 Security Specification controls, representing 12% coverage. The remaining 93 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 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification?

93 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in O-RAN WG11 Security Specification. 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 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification?

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.