SOC 2vsITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications
See exactly how SOC 2 controls map to ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications. 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:
SOC 2 maps to ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications with 11% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 61 SOC 2 controls identifies 54 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in CC - Common Criteria (Security).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 61 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
A - Availability(3 mappings)
CC - Common Criteria (Security)(1 mappings)
P - Privacy(3 mappings)
A SOC 2 to ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications 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.
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 11% 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 ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications 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 SOC 2 comparisons
Other ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications 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 SOC 2 and ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications?
SOC 2 has 61 controls across its framework, while ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications covers 13 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (11% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in CC - Common Criteria (Security), where 32 SOC 2 controls have no direct ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications equivalent.
How many controls map between SOC 2 and ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications?
Of 61 total SOC 2 controls, 7 map directly to ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications controls, representing 11% coverage. The remaining 54 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 ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications?
54 SOC 2 controls have no direct equivalent in ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications. The highest concentration of gaps is in CC - Common Criteria (Security) with 32 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 ITU-T X.805 - Security Architecture for End-to-End Communications?
The domain with the highest gap count is CC - Common Criteria (Security) (32 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.