TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsUS NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

16
Controls Mapped
87
Gaps Found
11%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants with 11% coverage across 11 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 103 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 92 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 103 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 16 of 16 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

DE - Detect(4 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis
→73.54(f)Plan Review and Update
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria3 targets
→RG5.71-C.3Cyber Security Training
→RG5.71-C.5Recovery and Restoration
→RG5.71-C.6Configuration Management

ID - Identify(2 mappings)

NIST-CSF-ID.IM-04Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans are established and maintained
→RG5.71-C.4Incident Response Plan
NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums
→73.54(f)Plan Review and Update

PR - Protect(5 mappings)

NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed3 targets
→RG5.71-C.3Cyber Security Training
→RG5.71-C.5Recovery and Restoration
→RG5.71-C.6Configuration Management
NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied
→RG5.71-C.6Configuration Management
NIST-CSF-PR.PS-04Log records are generated and made available for continuous monitoring
→RG5.71-C.7Continuous Monitoring

RC - Recover(3 mappings)

NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed2 targets
→RG5.71-C.4Incident Response Plan
→RG5.71-C.5Recovery and Restoration
NIST-CSF-RC.RP-06End-of-recovery is declared based on criteria and documentation
→RG5.71-C.5Recovery and Restoration

RS - Respond(2 mappings)

NIST-CSF-RS.MA-01The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties
→RG5.71-C.4Incident Response Plan
NIST-CSF-RS.MA-05Criteria for initiating incident recovery are applied
→RG5.71-C.5Recovery and Restoration

Related Comparisons

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security22 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange21 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs CSA CCM v421 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)20 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ISO 27001:202220 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)20 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) Cyber Risk Management Code of Conduct19 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation19 mappings

Other US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants comparisons

ISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants6 mappingsIAEA Nuclear Security Series — Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) vs US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants6 mappingsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants6 mappingsOWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) vs US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants6 mappingsCSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) vs US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants6 mappingsRBI Cybersecurity Framework for Banks vs US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants6 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants6 mappingsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants6 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 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 US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 103 controls across its framework, while US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants covers 21 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 11 overlapping controls (11% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 28 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants?

Of 103 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 11 map directly to US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants controls — representing 11% coverage. The remaining 92 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 US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants?

92 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 28 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 US NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Cyber Security for Nuclear Power Plants?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (28 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.