Cross-Framework Mapping

SOC 2vsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents

See exactly how SOC 2 controls map to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

60
Controls Mapped
1
Gaps Found
31%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

SOC 2 maps to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents with 31% coverage across 19 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 61 SOC 2 controls identifies 42 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in P - Privacy.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 61 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 60 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

A - Availability(9 mappings)

SOC2-A1.1Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments
ASD37-20Multi-factor authentication (Essential)
SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability4 targets
ASD37-20Multi-factor authentication (Essential)
ASD37-34Regular backups (Essential)
ASD37-35Business continuity and disaster recovery plans (Very Good)
ASD37-36System recovery capabilities (Very Good)
SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures4 targets
ASD37-20Multi-factor authentication (Essential)
ASD37-34Regular backups (Essential)
ASD37-35Business continuity and disaster recovery plans (Very Good)
ASD37-36System recovery capabilities (Very Good)

C - Confidentiality(1 mappings)

SOC2-C1.1Confidential information is identified and protected during receipt, processing, storage
ASD37-27Outbound data loss prevention (Very Good)

CC - Common Criteria (Security)(10 mappings)

SOC2-CC1.4COSO principle 4: Demonstrates commitment to attract and retain competent individuals
ASD37-37Personnel management (Very Good)
SOC2-CC2.2COSO principle 14: Internally communicates information including objectives and responsibilities
ASD37-15User education (Limited)
SOC2-CC5.2COSO principle 11: Selects and develops general controls over technology
ASD37-11Operating system hardening (Very Good)
SOC2-CC6.1Implements logical access security software, infrastructure and architectures over protected information assets4 targets
ASD37-18Restrict administrative privileges (Essential)
ASD37-20Multi-factor authentication (Essential)
ASD37-22Network segmentation (Excellent)
ASD37-23Protect authentication credentials (Excellent)
SOC2-CC6.2Prior to granting access, registration and authorization processes are established2 targets
ASD37-18Restrict administrative privileges (Essential)
ASD37-20Multi-factor authentication (Essential)
SOC2-CC6.3Role-based access and least privilege are enforced
ASD37-18Restrict administrative privileges (Essential)

+40 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

Coverage crosswalk

The SOC 2 to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls your existing SOC 2 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

Coverage does not run both ways. SOC 2 into ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents lands at 48.6%, while ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents into SOC 2 lands at 21.3%, on the same two control sets. That is not a rounding difference. It is the whole reason these are two separate reports: one asks what your SOC 2 evidence buys you for ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents, the other asks the reverse.

SOC 2 into ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents
48.6%

18 of 37 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls are evidenced by work you have already done for SOC 2. 19 are genuine gaps.

35.3%Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution
50%Limiting the Extent of Cyber Security Incidents
50%Detecting Cyber Security Incidents and Responding
100%Recovering Data and System Availability
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 37 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: ASD37-01 Application control (Essential)

Controls preventing introduction of unauthorized software are application control evidence.

Grounded in SOC2-CC6.8 Controls to prevent or detect unauthorized or malicious software. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: ASD37-02 Patch applications (Essential)

Patch/mitigate computers with extreme risk vulnerabilities within 48 hours. Use the latest version of applications.

Every one of the 18 evidenced controls and 19 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents into SOC 2
21.3%

13 of 61 SOC 2 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. 48 are genuine gaps.

33.3%CC - Common Criteria (Security)
66.7%A - Availability
0%C - Confidentiality
0%P - Privacy
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 43 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: SOC2-A1.2 Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability

ASD requires regular backups of data, software and configuration, stored disconnected and retained three months.

Grounded in ASD37-34 Regular backups (Essential). Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: SOC2-A1.1 Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments

Maintains, monitors, and evaluates current processing capacity and use of system components (infrastructure, data, and software) to manage capacity demand and to enable the implementation of additional capacity to help meet its objectives

Every one of the 13 evidenced controls and 48 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

SOC 2 to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents
$299
per framework pair, one time
  • 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 31% in the header counts how many SOC 2 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents 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.

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 686 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$149/month

Professional

  • Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • Unlimited full-text search
  • Framework self-assessment
  • PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

What are the key differences between SOC 2 and ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

SOC 2 has 61 controls across its framework, while ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents covers 37 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 19 overlapping controls (31% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in P - Privacy, where 18 SOC 2 controls have no direct ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents equivalent.

How many controls map between SOC 2 and ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

Of 61 total SOC 2 controls, 19 map directly to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls, representing 31% coverage. The remaining 42 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping SOC 2 to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

42 SOC 2 controls have no direct equivalent in ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. The highest concentration of gaps is in P - Privacy with 18 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 SOC 2 and ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

The domain with the highest gap count is P - Privacy (18 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

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.