TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

OWASP Top 10:2025vsOWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025

See exactly how OWASP Top 10:2025 controls map to OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

11
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
50%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

OWASP Top 10:2025 maps to OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025 with 50% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 10 OWASP Top 10:2025 controls identifies 5 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in SSRF.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 10 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Access Control(3 mappings)

OWASPTOP10-1A01:2025 Broken Access Control3 targets
→OWASPLLM-1Prompt Injection and System Prompt Leakage (LLM01 + LLM07)
→OWASPLLM-2Improper Output Handling and Misinformation (LLM05 + LLM09)
→OWASPLLM-6Excessive Agency and Unbounded Consumption (LLM06 + LLM10)

Cryptography(2 mappings)

OWASPTOP10-2A02:2025 Cryptographic Failures and Secret Management2 targets
→OWASPLLM-1Prompt Injection and System Prompt Leakage (LLM01 + LLM07)
→OWASPLLM-3Sensitive Information Disclosure and Privacy (LLM02)

Injection(1 mappings)

OWASPTOP10-3A03:2025 Injection Including Cross-Site Scripting
→OWASPLLM-4Supply Chain and Vector/Embedding Weaknesses (LLM03 + LLM08)

Component Security(3 mappings)

OWASPTOP10-6A06:2025 Vulnerable and Outdated Components3 targets
→OWASPLLM-1Prompt Injection and System Prompt Leakage (LLM01 + LLM07)
→OWASPLLM-2Improper Output Handling and Misinformation (LLM05 + LLM09)
→OWASPLLM-6Excessive Agency and Unbounded Consumption (LLM06 + LLM10)

Authentication(2 mappings)

OWASPTOP10-7A07:2025 Identification and Authentication Failures2 targets
→OWASPLLM-1Prompt Injection and System Prompt Leakage (LLM01 + LLM07)
→OWASPLLM-3Sensitive Information Disclosure and Privacy (LLM02)

Related Comparisons

Other OWASP Top 10:2025 comparisons

OWASP Top 10:2025 vs NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security8 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs NIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)7 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs ISO/IEC 27400:20227 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs FedRAMP Rev 57 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts7 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs NIST Privacy Framework7 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024)6 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements6 mappings

Other OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025 comparisons

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 20255 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 20255 mappingsISO 15189:2022 - Medical Laboratories Requirements for Quality and Competence vs OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 20255 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 20255 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 20255 mappingsMTCS (Singapore) vs OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 20254 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 20254 mappingsISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 20254 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 OWASP Top 10:2025 and OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025?

OWASP Top 10:2025 has 10 controls across its framework, while OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025 covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (50% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in SSRF, where 1 OWASP Top 10:2025 controls have no direct OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025 equivalent.

How many controls map between OWASP Top 10:2025 and OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025?

Of 10 total OWASP Top 10:2025 controls, 5 map directly to OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025 controls — representing 50% 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 OWASP Top 10:2025 to OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025?

5 OWASP Top 10:2025 controls have no direct equivalent in OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025. The highest concentration of gaps is in SSRF 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 Top 10:2025 and OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025?

The domain with the highest gap count is SSRF (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.