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

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 | 706 frameworks | 324K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 324K+ mappings across 706 frameworks.

DE - Detect(4 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis
→ORANWG11-1O-RAN Threat Model, Risk Management, and Security Architecture
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined 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
→ORANWG11-1O-RAN Threat Model, Risk Management, and Security Architecture
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction for cybersecurity risk management is established
→ORANWG11-1O-RAN Threat Model, Risk Management, and Security Architecture
NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01Cybersecurity supply chain risk management program is established
→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
→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
→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 and managed3 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 throughout the SDLC
→ORANWG11-8Supply Chain, Secure Development Lifecycle, Privacy, Multi-Vendor Trust

Related Comparisons

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ISO 27001:202282 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Belgium CyberFundamentals32 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices32 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ASEAN Data Management Framework25 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security22 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Azure Security Benchmark22 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF)19 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)19 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 mappingsAPRA CPS 234 vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappingsFFIEC IT Examination Handbook vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappingsISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification5 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 706 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 706 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (324K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/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.