Cross-Framework Mapping

SOC 2vsSouth Korea ISMS-P

See exactly how SOC 2 controls map to South Korea ISMS-P. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

20
Controls Mapped
34
Gaps Found
19%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

SOC 2 maps to South Korea ISMS-P with 19% coverage across 10 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 54 SOC 2 controls identifies 44 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in CC - Common Criteria (Security).

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 54 controls analysed | 715 frameworks | 415K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 20 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 415K+ mappings across 715 frameworks.

A - Availability(4 mappings)

SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability2 targets
ISMSP-PI-06Personal Information Destruction
ISMSP-SYS-06Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery
SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures2 targets
ISMSP-PI-06Personal Information Destruction
ISMSP-SYS-06Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery

CC - Common Criteria (Security)(7 mappings)

SOC2-CC4.2COSO principle 17: Evaluates and communicates deficiencies in a timely manner
ISMSP-SYS-04Vulnerability Management
SOC2-CC6.2Prior to granting access, registration and authorization processes are established
ISMSP-AC-01Access Control Policy
SOC2-CC6.3Role-based access and least privilege are enforced2 targets
ISMSP-AC-01Access Control Policy
ISMSP-AC-04Network Access Control
SOC2-CC7.4Responds to identified security incidents through defined procedures2 targets
ISMSP-SYS-04Vulnerability Management
ISMSP-SYS-05Incident Response
SOC2-CC7.5Identifies the root cause of security incidents
ISMSP-SYS-05Incident Response

P - Privacy(9 mappings)

SOC2-P3.1Personal information is collected consistent with privacy commitments3 targets
ISMSP-PI-01Personal Information Collection
ISMSP-PI-04Cross-Border Transfer
ISMSP-SYS-02Encryption Implementation
SOC2-P4.3Personal information is securely disposed of3 targets
ISMSP-PI-01Personal Information Collection
ISMSP-PI-04Cross-Border Transfer
ISMSP-SYS-02Encryption Implementation
SOC2-P6.1Personal information is disclosed to third parties only as committed3 targets
ISMSP-PI-01Personal Information Collection
ISMSP-PI-04Cross-Border Transfer
ISMSP-SYS-02Encryption Implementation

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 715 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 715 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (415K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/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 South Korea ISMS-P?

SOC 2 has 54 controls across its framework, while South Korea ISMS-P covers 40 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 10 overlapping controls (19% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in CC - Common Criteria (Security), where 26 SOC 2 controls have no direct South Korea ISMS-P equivalent.

How many controls map between SOC 2 and South Korea ISMS-P?

Of 54 total SOC 2 controls, 10 map directly to South Korea ISMS-P controls — representing 19% coverage. The remaining 44 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 South Korea ISMS-P?

44 SOC 2 controls have no direct equivalent in South Korea ISMS-P. The highest concentration of gaps is in CC - Common Criteria (Security) with 26 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 South Korea ISMS-P?

The domain with the highest gap count is CC - Common Criteria (Security) (26 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.