Framework Mapping

Compliance Crosswalk & Control Overlap Analysis

The Multi-Framework Challenge

Modern organizations face overlapping compliance requirements from multiple regulatory and industry frameworks. DORA, NIS2, ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIST CSF, CRA, and CMMC all demand continuous security controls—but most organizations treat each as a separate initiative, duplicating effort and missing opportunities for synergy.

70%+

Control Overlap Across Major Frameworks

3-5x

Audit Effort Reduction Possible

Single

Unified CAGE Evidence Repository

Frameworks Mapped to CAGE

DORA

EU Financial Entities

Digital Operational Resilience Act mandates continuous ICT risk management, incident reporting (4-hour deadline), third-party monitoring, and threat-led penetration testing for EU financial institutions.

NIS2

EU Essential/Important Entities

Network and Information Security Directive 2 requires cybersecurity risk management, supply chain security, incident notification (24-hour deadline), and business continuity for critical infrastructure.

ISO 27001

International ISMS Standard

Information Security Management System standard with 93 controls across 14 domains. Requires documented policies, risk assessment, continuous improvement, and annual certification audits.

SOC 2 Type II

US Service Organizations

Service Organization Control 2 attestation verifies security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy controls over time (minimum 6-month period).

NIST CSF 2.0

US Cybersecurity Framework

Voluntary framework for managing cybersecurity risk with six core functions: Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover. Widely adopted across industries and government.

EU CRA

EU Digital Product Manufacturers

Cyber Resilience Act requires security-by-design, vulnerability handling, continuous security updates, and conformity assessment for products with digital elements sold in EU.

CMMC 2.0

US Defense Contractors

Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification requires continuous compliance monitoring and third-party assessment for DoD contractors handling Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

Control Overlap Matrix

This matrix shows how common security controls map across major frameworks. A single CAGE implementation can satisfy requirements across multiple standards simultaneously.

Security Control	DORA	NIS2	ISO 27001	SOC 2	NIST CSF	CRA	CMMC
Access Control & Authentication	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Incident Detection & Response	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Continuous Monitoring	✓	✓	◐	✓	✓	✓	✓
Vulnerability Management	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Configuration Management	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Audit Logging & Trail	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	◐	✓
Third-Party Risk Management	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Data Protection & Encryption	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Network Segmentation	✓	✓	◐	◐	✓	◐	✓
Backup & Recovery	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	◐	✓
Security Training & Awareness	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	◐	✓
Change Management	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Penetration Testing	✓	◐	◐	◐	✓	◐	✓
Asset Inventory Management	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Risk Assessment & Treatment	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

✓ Full Requirement

◐ Partial/Implied

Not Applicable

How CAGE Maps to All Frameworks

CAGE's three-step process (Identify → Intervene → Correct) satisfies control requirements across all major frameworks. One implementation, multiple certifications.

1 IDENTIFY

Automated detection of policy non-compliance across all SPHERE dimensions (Security, Privacy, Handling, Exposure, Resilience, Execution) in real-time.

DORA

Art. 6 - ICT Risk Management
Art. 17 - Detection & Monitoring
Art. 20 - Third-party Monitoring

NIS2

Art. 21 - Cybersecurity Measures
Art. 21(2)(c) - Monitoring
Art. 21(2)(e) - Supply Chain

ISO 27001

A.8.16 - Monitoring Activities
A.5.7 - Threat Intelligence
A.8.19 - Configuration Mgmt

SOC 2

CC7.2 - Monitoring Controls
CC4.1 - CISO Responsibility
CC6.1 - Logical Access

NIST CSF 2.0

DE.CM - Continuous Monitoring
ID.AM - Asset Management
ID.RA - Risk Assessment

CRA

Art. 10 - Vulnerability Handling
Art. 11 - Reporting Obligations
Annex I - Security Requirements

CMMC 2.0

AU - Audit & Accountability
CA - Assessment & Authorization
SI - System & Info Integrity

2 INTERVENE

Automated remediation workflows triggered without human delay. Immediate containment, access revocation, and policy enforcement across hybrid infrastructure.

DORA

Art. 11 - Response & Recovery
Art. 13 - Communication Plans
Art. 14 - Testing & Crisis Mgmt

NIS2

Art. 21(2)(d) - Incident Handling
Art. 21(2)(f) - Business Continuity
Art. 23 - Incident Notification

ISO 27001

A.5.24 - Incident Response
A.5.25 - Incident Assessment
A.5.26 - Evidence Collection

SOC 2

CC7.3 - Incident Response
CC7.4 - Corrective Actions
A1.2 - Incident Management

NIST CSF 2.0

RS.MA - Response Management
RS.AN - Response Analysis
RS.MI - Response Mitigation

CRA

Art. 10(3) - Remediation
Art. 10(6) - Security Updates
Art. 11(2) - Incident Response

CMMC 2.0

IR - Incident Response
CM - Configuration Mgmt
SC - System & Comms Protection

3 CORRECT

Restore compliant security state with automatic audit trail generation. Cryptographically verified evidence for all governance actions across all frameworks simultaneously.

DORA

Art. 19 - Incident Reporting
Art. 11(5) - Recovery Procedures
Art. 25 - Testing Results

NIS2

Art. 23(4) - Final Report
Art. 21(2)(h) - Policies
Art. 20(1) - Documentation

ISO 27001

A.5.28 - Evidence Collection
A.8.10 - Info Deletion
10.1 - Continuous Improvement

SOC 2

CC7.5 - Lessons Learned
CC5.1 - Control Activities
CC9.1 - Risk Mitigation

NIST CSF 2.0

RC.RP - Recovery Planning
RC.IM - Recovery Improvements
RC.CO - Recovery Communications

CRA

Art. 10(7) - Update Deployment
Art. 13 - Documentation
Art. 23 - Conformity Assessment

CMMC 2.0

CP - Contingency Planning
MA - Maintenance
RA - Risk Assessment

Audit Efficiency: Traditional vs. CAGE

Scenario: Organization needs DORA, NIS2, and ISO 27001 compliance

❌ Traditional Approach

SEPARATE AUDIT PROCESSES

3 Independent Audits

Each framework treated as distinct initiative with separate evidence collection

ANNUAL AUDIT BURDEN

1,200+ Hours

~400 hours per audit × 3 frameworks = massive FTE drain

EVIDENCE COLLECTION

Manual & Duplicated

Same control evidence collected 3 times in different formats

COMPLIANCE GAPS

89-Day Blind Spots

Between quarterly audits, organization has no continuous verification

EXTERNAL COSTS

€150K - €300K

Per year in audit fees, consultants, and certification costs

✓ CAGE Approach

UNIFIED AUDIT PROCESS

Single Evidence Repository

One continuous audit trail mapped to all frameworks simultaneously

ANNUAL AUDIT BURDEN

300-400 Hours

70% reduction through automation and evidence reuse across frameworks

EVIDENCE COLLECTION

Automated & Continuous

Cryptographically verified evidence generated automatically, mapped to all frameworks

COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION

Real-Time 24/7

Continuous compliance status across all frameworks with instant drift detection

EXTERNAL COSTS

€50K - €100K

65% reduction through streamlined audits and consolidated evidence

Strategic Benefits of Unified Framework Mapping

🎯

Single Source of Truth

One continuous audit trail serves all frameworks. No conflicting evidence, no manual reconciliation, no gaps between point-in-time audits.

⚡

Regulatory Agility

When new frameworks emerge (e.g., upcoming AI Act requirements), CAGE's control mapping allows rapid gap analysis and compliance acceleration.

💰

Cost Efficiency

70% reduction in audit burden, 65% reduction in external costs. CAGE implementation typically pays for itself within 12 months through audit efficiency alone.

🔒

Risk Reduction

Continuous verification eliminates the 89-day compliance blind spot. Real-time drift detection prevents non-compliance before regulators discover it.

📊

Executive Visibility

Board-level dashboards show compliance status across all frameworks simultaneously. Satisfy DORA/NIS2 management accountability requirements with real-time evidence.

🌍

Multi-Jurisdiction Compliance

For pan-European organizations, CAGE automatically maps controls to applicable national implementations (e.g., KRITIS in Germany, ANSSI in France) without separate audit processes.