OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM)vsGS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security
See exactly how OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) controls map to GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security. 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 DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) maps to GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security with 33% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 6 OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) controls identifies 4 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Metrics and Improvement.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 6 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Build and Deployment(2 mappings)
Test and Verification(2 mappings)
A OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) to GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security controls your existing OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) 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 33% in the header counts how many OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security 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 DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) comparisons
Other GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
- ✓ 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 DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) and GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security?
OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) has 6 controls across its framework, while GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security covers 13 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (33% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Metrics and Improvement, where 1 OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) controls have no direct GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security equivalent.
How many controls map between OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) and GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security?
Of 6 total OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) controls, 2 map directly to GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security controls, representing 33% 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 OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) to GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security?
4 OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) controls have no direct equivalent in GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security. The highest concentration of gaps is in Metrics and Improvement 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 DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) and GS1 Global Standards - Supply Chain Traceability and Data Security?
The domain with the highest gap count is Metrics and Improvement (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.