NIST SP 1800-32vsIAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)
See exactly how NIST SP 1800-32 controls map to IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
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 SP 1800-32 maps to IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) with 27% coverage across 12 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 44 NIST SP 1800-32 controls identifies 32 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Protect.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 44 controls analysed | 692 frameworks | 306K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 14 of 14 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 306K+ mappings across 692 frameworks.
NIST SP 1800-32: Access Management(4 mappings)
NIST SP 1800-32: Systems Security(2 mappings)
NIST SP 1800-32: Incident Response & Recovery(3 mappings)
NIST SP 1800-32: Supply Chain & Configuration(5 mappings)
A NIST SP 1800-32 to IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) controls your existing NIST SP 1800-32 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
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.
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.
- 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 27% in the header counts how many NIST SP 1800-32 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) 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 SP 1800-32 comparisons
Other IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 692 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 692 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (306K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between NIST SP 1800-32 and IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?
NIST SP 1800-32 has 44 controls across its framework, while IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 12 overlapping controls (27% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Protect, where 6 NIST SP 1800-32 controls have no direct IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST SP 1800-32 and IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?
Of 44 total NIST SP 1800-32 controls, 12 map directly to IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) controls, representing 27% coverage. The remaining 32 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST SP 1800-32 to IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?
32 NIST SP 1800-32 controls have no direct equivalent in IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1). The highest concentration of gaps is in Protect with 6 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 SP 1800-32 and IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Protect (6 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
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.