TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security RequirementsvsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production

See exactly how NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls map to NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

15
Controls Mapped
20
Gaps Found
20%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements maps to NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production 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 | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 15 of 15 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Access Control and Identification(3 mappings)

3.1Food Safety and Quality Manual3 targets
→AQAP-5.10Internal Audit (NATO)
→AQAP-5.12Corrective Action
→AQAP-5.5Nonconformity Notification

Audit, Assessment, and Monitoring(1 mappings)

3.12Security Assessment and Monitoring
→AQAP-5.9Government Surveillance

Incident Response and Media Protection(9 mappings)

3.16System and Services Acquisition3 targets
→AQAP-4.1Application of ISO 9001:2015
→AQAP-5.8Subcontractor QMS
→AQAP-5.9Government Surveillance
3.17Supply Chain Risk Management3 targets
→AQAP-4.1Application of ISO 9001:2015
→AQAP-5.8Subcontractor QMS
→AQAP-5.9Government Surveillance
3.5Management of Suppliers3 targets
→AQAP-4.1Application of ISO 9001:2015
→AQAP-5.8Subcontractor QMS
→AQAP-5.9Government Surveillance

System Protection and Communications(2 mappings)

FEDRAMP-CM-1Configuration Management Policy
→AQAP-5.2Configuration Management
FEDRAMP-CM-2Baseline Configuration
→AQAP-5.2Configuration Management

Related Comparisons

Other NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements comparisons

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs UK Telecommunications (Security) Act 202121 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs PAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs Canada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Nuclear Facility Cybersecurity21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange20 mappings

Other NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production comparisons

ILO Nursing Personnel Convention C149 (1977) vs NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production8 mappings6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6, Directive (EU) 2018/1673) vs NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production8 mappingsISO 8000 — Data Quality vs NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production8 mappingsFATF Recommendation 16 — Virtual Asset Travel Rule vs NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production8 mappingsPrivacy by Design (PbD) — Seven Foundational Principles vs NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production8 mappingsBS 65000:2014 — Guidance on Organizational Resilience vs NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production8 mappingsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production7 mappingsFDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) vs NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production7 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 SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements and NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production?

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements has 35 controls across its framework, while NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production covers 20 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 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements and NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production?

Of 35 total NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls, 7 map directly to NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production 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 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production?

28 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls have no direct equivalent in NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production. 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 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production?

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

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.