TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST SP 800-172vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

See exactly how NIST SP 800-172 controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

95
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
94%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST SP 800-172 maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 94% coverage across 33 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 NIST SP 800-172 controls identifies 2 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in SC.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 95 mapped controls across 10 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

AC(5 mappings)

3.1.1eDual Authorization for Sensitive System Operations
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of least privilege and separation of duties
3.1.2eRestrict Access to Organization-Owned, Provisioned, or Issued Information Resources2 targets
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of least privilege and separation of duties
→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-01Networks and environments are protected from unauthorized logical access and usage
3.1.3eEmploy Secure Information Transfer Solutions2 targets
→NIST-CSF-ID.AM-03Representations of the organization's authorized network communication and internal and external network data flows are maintained
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-02The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected

RA(15 mappings)

3.11.1eThreat-Aware Risk Assessment6 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and other contextual information are integrated into the analysis
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-07Strategic opportunities (i.e., positive risks) are characterized and are included in organizational cybersecurity risk discussions
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums and sources
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-03Internal and external threats to the organization are identified and recorded
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-04Potential impacts and likelihoods of threats exploiting vulnerabilities are identified and recorded
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-05Threats, vulnerabilities, likelihoods, and impacts are used to understand inherent risk and inform risk response prioritization
3.11.2eThreat Hunting3 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and other contextual information are integrated into the analysis
→NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events
3.11.3eAdvanced Automation and Analytics Capabilities4 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03Information is correlated from multiple sources
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-04Log records are generated and made available for continuous monitoring
3.11.4eSecurity Solution Rationale Document2 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-06A standardized method for calculating, documenting, categorizing, and prioritizing cybersecurity risks is established and communicated
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-06Risk responses are chosen, prioritized, planned, tracked, and communicated

+75 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 686 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

The NIST SP 800-172 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls your existing NIST SP 800-172 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

Coverage does not run both ways. NIST SP 800-172 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 lands at 30.2%, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into NIST SP 800-172 lands at 48.6%, on the same two control sets. That is not a rounding difference. It is the whole reason these are two separate reports: one asks what your NIST SP 800-172 evidence buys you for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, the other asks the reverse.

NIST SP 800-172 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
30.2%

32 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST SP 800-172. 74 are genuine gaps.

47.6%ID - Identify
40.9%PR - Protect
63.6%DE - Detect
10.7%GV - Govern
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 77 candidate mappings were examined and 6 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

A 24/7 security operations centre performs the continuous event analysis this subcategory requires.

Grounded in 3.6.1e Establish Security Operations Center (SOC). Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04 The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood

The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood

Every one of the 32 evidenced controls and 74 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into NIST SP 800-172
48.6%

17 of 35 NIST SP 800-172 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 18 are genuine gaps.

71.4%RA
42.9%SI
66.7%CM
100%PS
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 59 candidate mappings were examined and 7 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: 3.1.3e Employ Secure Information Transfer Solutions

Both require authorized communication and data flows to be defined and maintained.

Grounded in NIST-CSF-ID.AM-03 Representations of the organization's authorized network communication and internal and external network data flows are maintained. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: 3.1.1e Dual Authorization for Sensitive System Operations

Employ dual authorization to execute critical or sensitive system and organizational operations affecting CUI.

Every one of the 17 evidenced controls and 18 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIST SP 800-172 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
$299
per framework pair, one time
  • 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 94% in the header counts how many NIST SP 800-172 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 800-172 comparisons

NIST SP 800-172 vs NIST SP 800-161 Rev 135 mappingsNIST SP 800-172 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 535 mappingsNIST SP 800-172 vs C5 (Germany)33 mappingsNIST SP 800-172 vs Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.133 mappingsNIST SP 800-172 vs PCI DSS 4.033 mappingsNIST SP 800-172 vs FedRAMP High32 mappingsNIST SP 800-172 vs FedRAMP Moderate32 mappingsNIST SP 800-172 vs NIST SP 800-171 Rev 332 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0106 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsFedRAMP Moderate vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsFedRAMP High vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsSOC 2 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsAustralian Information Security Manual vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0103 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 686 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$149/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 800-172 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

NIST SP 800-172 has 35 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 33 overlapping controls (94% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in SC, where 2 NIST SP 800-172 controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST SP 800-172 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 35 total NIST SP 800-172 controls, 33 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, representing 94% coverage. The remaining 2 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST SP 800-172 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

2 NIST SP 800-172 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in SC with 2 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 800-172 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is SC (2 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.