NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security RequirementsvsISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model
See exactly how NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls map to ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model. 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 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements maps to ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model with 20% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls identifies 28 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in System Protection and Communications.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 10 of 10 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Access Control and Identification(1 mappings)
Awareness, Training, and Personnel(1 mappings)
Audit, Assessment, and Monitoring(4 mappings)
System Protection and Communications(4 mappings)
A NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements to ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model controls your existing NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements 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 20% in the header counts how many NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model 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 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
- ✓ 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 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements and ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model?
NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements has 35 controls across its framework, while ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model covers 36 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (20% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in System Protection and Communications, where 13 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls have no direct ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements and ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model?
Of 35 total NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls, 7 map directly to ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model controls, representing 20% coverage. The remaining 28 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements to ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model?
28 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls have no direct equivalent in ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model. The highest concentration of gaps is in System Protection and Communications with 13 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 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements and ISO/IEC 25012:2008 - Data Quality Model?
The domain with the highest gap count is System Protection and Communications (13 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.