TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11)vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

See exactly how O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

18
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
62%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 62% coverage across 8 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 13 O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) controls identifies 5 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Security Protocols (O-RAN.WG11 Pillar 3).

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 13 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 18 of 18 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Security Threat Modeling (O-RAN.WG11 Pillar 1)(5 mappings)

ORAN-SEC-1.1Threat Modeling and Remediation2 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums
ORAN-SEC-1.2Risk Management3 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-03Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction for cybersecurity risk management is established
→NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01Cybersecurity supply chain risk management program is established

Security Requirements (O-RAN.WG11 Pillar 2 - O-R003)(8 mappings)

ORAN-SEC-2.1Interface Security Requirements4 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed
ORAN-SEC-2.2Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability3 targets
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-10The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected
→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-03Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations
→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-04Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained
ORAN-SEC-2.3Least Privilege and Zero Trust
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

Security Protocols (O-RAN.WG11 Pillar 3)(2 mappings)

ORAN-SEC-3.1TLS Implementation2 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

Security Testing (O-RAN.WG11 Pillar 4)(2 mappings)

ORAN-SEC-4.1Security Test Specifications2 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

Data and Application Security(1 mappings)

ORAN-SEC-5.2Application Security
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06Secure software development practices are integrated throughout the SDLC

Related Comparisons

Other O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) comparisons

O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) vs CSA CCM v49 mappingsO-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) vs ASD Information Security Manual (ISM)9 mappingsO-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange9 mappingsO-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) vs ISO 27001:20228 mappingsO-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) vs CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk)8 mappingsO-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)8 mappingsO-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) vs Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8)8 mappingsO-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)8 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.022 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.021 mappingsCSA CCM v4 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.021 mappingsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.020 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.020 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.020 mappingsBermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) Cyber Risk Management Code of Conduct vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 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 O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) has 13 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 103 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (62% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Security Protocols (O-RAN.WG11 Pillar 3), where 2 O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 13 total O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) controls, 8 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls — representing 62% coverage. The remaining 5 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

5 O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Security Protocols (O-RAN.WG11 Pillar 3) 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 O-RAN Alliance Security Specifications (O-RAN.WG11) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is Security Protocols (O-RAN.WG11 Pillar 3) (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.