OWASP ASVSvsIEEE 1686
See exactly how OWASP ASVS controls map to IEEE 1686. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
OWASP ASVS maps to IEEE 1686 with 36% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 14 OWASP ASVS controls identifies 9 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in V1 Architecture and Threat Modelling.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 14 controls analysed | 683 frameworks | 306K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 6 of 6 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 306K+ mappings across 683 frameworks.
V10 Malicious Code(1 mappings)
V2 Authentication(1 mappings)
V4 Access Control(1 mappings)
V8 Data Protection(2 mappings)
V9 Communication(1 mappings)
A OWASP ASVS to IEEE 1686 crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which IEEE 1686 controls your existing OWASP ASVS work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- 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 36% in the header counts how many OWASP ASVS controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many IEEE 1686 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 OWASP ASVS comparisons
Other IEEE 1686 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 683 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 683 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (306K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between OWASP ASVS and IEEE 1686?
OWASP ASVS has 14 controls across its framework, while IEEE 1686 covers 7 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (36% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in V1 Architecture and Threat Modelling, where 1 OWASP ASVS controls have no direct IEEE 1686 equivalent.
How many controls map between OWASP ASVS and IEEE 1686?
Of 14 total OWASP ASVS controls, 5 map directly to IEEE 1686 controls, representing 36% coverage. The remaining 9 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping OWASP ASVS to IEEE 1686?
9 OWASP ASVS controls have no direct equivalent in IEEE 1686. The highest concentration of gaps is in V1 Architecture and Threat Modelling 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 OWASP ASVS and IEEE 1686?
The domain with the highest gap count is V1 Architecture and Threat Modelling (1 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
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.