TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

O-RAN WG11 Security SpecificationvsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

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

17
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
62%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

O-RAN WG11 Security Specification maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 62% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification controls identifies 3 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Logging, Monitoring, IR, DoS.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 706 frameworks | 324K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 324K+ mappings across 706 frameworks.

Threat Model and Risk Management(5 mappings)

ORANWG11-1O-RAN Threat Model, Risk Management, and Security Architecture5 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis
→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
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-02Cyber threat intelligence is received from information sharing forums

O-RAN Interface Security(7 mappings)

ORANWG11-2O-RAN Interface Security: E2, A1, O1, O2, Open Fronthaul7 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
→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

Cryptography, Protocols, PKI(2 mappings)

ORANWG11-3Cryptography, TLS, SSH, IPsec, and PKI Lifecycle Management2 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 Test and Certification(2 mappings)

ORANWG11-6Security Test Specifications, Certification, and Conformance2 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

Supply Chain, SDLC, Privacy, Trust(1 mappings)

ORANWG11-8Supply Chain, Secure Development Lifecycle, Privacy, Multi-Vendor Trust
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06Secure software development practices are integrated throughout the SDLC

Related Comparisons

Other O-RAN WG11 Security Specification comparisons

O-RAN WG11 Security Specification vs OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM)6 mappingsO-RAN WG11 Security Specification vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsO-RAN WG11 Security Specification vs Open Banking Security5 mappingsO-RAN WG11 Security Specification vs APRA CPS 2345 mappingsO-RAN WG11 Security Specification vs ISO 27001:20225 mappingsO-RAN WG11 Security Specification vs FFIEC IT Examination Handbook5 mappingsO-RAN WG11 Security Specification vs ISO/IEC 27400:20225 mappingsO-RAN WG11 Security Specification vs OWASP Top 10:20255 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

ISO 27001:2022 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.082 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.032 mappingsASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.032 mappingsASEAN Data Management Framework vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.025 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.022 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.022 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 706 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 706 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (324K+)
  • ✓ 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 WG11 Security Specification and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

O-RAN WG11 Security Specification has 8 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (62% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Logging, Monitoring, IR, DoS, where 1 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between O-RAN WG11 Security Specification and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 8 total O-RAN WG11 Security Specification controls, 5 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls — representing 62% coverage. The remaining 3 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping O-RAN WG11 Security Specification to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

3 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Logging, Monitoring, IR, DoS 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 O-RAN WG11 Security Specification and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is Logging, Monitoring, IR, DoS (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.