TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST SP 800-66vsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements

See exactly how NIST SP 800-66 controls map to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

12
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
50%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST SP 800-66 maps to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements with 50% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 NIST SP 800-66 controls identifies 4 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Integration with NIST RMF, CSF, OCR Enforcement.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 12 of 12 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Security Management Process - Risk Analysis and Risk Management(1 mappings)

NISTSP66-1Security Management Process: Risk Analysis and Risk Management for ePHI
→3.11Encrypt Sensitive Data at Rest

Workforce Security + Access + Training(3 mappings)

NISTSP66-2Workforce Security, Information Access Management, and Awareness Training3 targets
→3.10Encrypt Sensitive Data in Transit
→3.2.1Account data storage minimised
→3.9Encrypt Data on Removable Media

Physical Safeguards(1 mappings)

NISTSP66-5Physical Safeguards: Facility Access, Workstation Use and Security, Device and Media Controls
→3.10Encrypt Sensitive Data in Transit

Technical Safeguards(7 mappings)

NISTSP66-6Technical Safeguards: Access Control, Audit Controls, Integrity, Person Authentication7 targets
→3.10Encrypt Sensitive Data in Transit
→3.3.1Audit Record Creation
→3.7Establish and Maintain a Data Classification Scheme
→3.7.1Key generation procedures
→FEDRAMP-SC-13Cryptographic Protection
→FEDRAMP-SC-28Protection of Information at Rest
→FEDRAMP-SC-8Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity

Related Comparisons

Other NIST SP 800-66 comparisons

NIST SP 800-66 vs Turkey KVKK4 mappingsNIST SP 800-66 vs Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)4 mappingsNIST SP 800-66 vs ISO 134854 mappingsNIST SP 800-66 vs ISO 277994 mappingsNIST SP 800-66 vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)4 mappingsNIST SP 800-66 vs BSI IT-Grundschutz4 mappingsNIST SP 800-66 vs Annex 11 to EU GMP - Computerised Systems4 mappingsNIST SP 800-66 vs ISO 270194 mappings

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

NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements20 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements18 mappingsMTCS (Singapore) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements17 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements16 mappingsNIST SP 800-146 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsNIST SP 800-145 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsNIST SP 800-144 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 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 800-66 and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

NIST SP 800-66 has 8 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (50% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Integration with NIST RMF, CSF, OCR Enforcement, where 1 NIST SP 800-66 controls have no direct NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST SP 800-66 and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

Of 8 total NIST SP 800-66 controls, 4 map directly to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls — representing 50% coverage. The remaining 4 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST SP 800-66 to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

4 NIST SP 800-66 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. The highest concentration of gaps is in Integration with NIST RMF, CSF, OCR Enforcement with 1 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 800-66 and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

The domain with the highest gap count is Integration with NIST RMF, CSF, OCR Enforcement (1 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.