Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI)vsFFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)
See exactly how Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) controls map to FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT). 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:
Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) maps to FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) with 29% coverage across 10 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) controls identifies 25 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in SOCI Act: Sector Coverage.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 13 of 13 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
SOCI Act: Critical Infrastructure Risk Management Program(8 mappings)
SOCI Act: Cyber Security Incident Reporting(2 mappings)
SOCI Act: Enhanced Cyber Security Obligations(2 mappings)
SOCI Act: Government Assistance Powers(1 mappings)
A Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) to FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls your existing Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) 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 29% in the header counts how many Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) 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 Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) comparisons
Other FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) 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 (309K+)
- ✓ 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 Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) and FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)?
Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) has 35 controls across its framework, while FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) covers 49 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 10 overlapping controls (29% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in SOCI Act: Sector Coverage, where 11 Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) controls have no direct FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) equivalent.
How many controls map between Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) and FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)?
Of 35 total Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) controls, 10 map directly to FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls, representing 29% coverage. The remaining 25 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) to FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)?
25 Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) controls have no direct equivalent in FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT). The highest concentration of gaps is in SOCI Act: Sector Coverage with 11 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 Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) and FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)?
The domain with the highest gap count is SOCI Act: Sector Coverage (11 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.