Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI)vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
See exactly how Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 31 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
SOCI Act: Critical Infrastructure Risk Management Program(17 mappings)
SOCI Act: Cyber Security Incident Reporting(3 mappings)
+11 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 686 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever, no credit card required
A Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?
Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) has 35 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.
How many controls map between Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?
Of 35 total Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) controls, 10 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?
25 Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?
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.