PTESvsNIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment)
See exactly how PTES controls map to NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment). 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:
PTES maps to NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment) with 23% coverage across 11 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 47 PTES controls identifies 39 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Superseded batch representation – PTES.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 47 controls analysed | 868 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 868 frameworks.
Pre-engagement: scope, authorisation and rules of engagement – PTES(3 mappings)
Communication and incident handling during the test – PTES(1 mappings)
Conduct of the test: what the commissioning organisation must ensure is governed – PTES(3 mappings)
Evidence, data protection and post-test cleanup – PTES(2 mappings)
Reporting – PTES(2 mappings)
A PTES to NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment) controls your existing PTES 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 23% in the header counts how many PTES controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment) 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 PTES comparisons
Other NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 868 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 868 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
- ✓ 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 PTES and NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment)?
PTES has 47 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment) covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 11 overlapping controls (23% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Superseded batch representation – PTES, where 29 PTES controls have no direct NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment) equivalent.
How many controls map between PTES and NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment)?
Of 47 total PTES controls, 11 map directly to NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment) controls, representing 23% coverage. The remaining 39 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping PTES to NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment)?
39 PTES controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment). The highest concentration of gaps is in Superseded batch representation – PTES with 29 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 PTES and NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Superseded batch representation – PTES (29 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.