Framework overlap

Does African Union Malabo Convention cover NIST SP 800-172?

You hold African Union Malabo Convention and have been told to do NIST SP 800-172. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

42% of NIST SP 800-172 you already have

African Union Malabo Convention already covers about 42% of NIST SP 800-172, leaving 21 of 36 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 15 New work 21

No control in African Union Malabo Convention maps directly to one in NIST SP 800-172. Everything counted as covered is covered because both map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather than a lookup.

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in African Union Malabo Convention reaches these. This is the list to scope.

3.1.3e
Employ Secure Information Transfer Solutions
3.11.1e
Threat-Aware Risk Assessment
3.11.4e
Security Solution Rationale Document
3.11.5e
Assess Effectiveness of Security Solutions
3.11.7e
Supply Chain Risk Management Plan
3.12.1e
Penetration Testing by Independent Agents
3.14.1e
Verify Integrity of Security Critical Software and Firmware
3.14.4e
Refresh Systems and Components from a Trusted Baseline
3.14.5e
Verify Integrity After Reauthentication
3.14.6e
Use Threat Indicator Information for Detection
3.14.7e
Verify Correctness of Security Functions
3.2.1e
Provide Awareness Training on Advanced Persistent Threat
3.2.2e
Practical Exercises in Awareness Training
3.4.1e
Authoritative Source for Software and Firmware
3.4.3e
Automated Inventory of System Components
3.5.1e
Identification of Systems, Components, and Devices
3.5.3e
Multifactor Authentication for Local, Network, and Remote Access
3.6.2e
Establish and Maintain a Cyber Incident Response Team
3.7.6e
Maintenance Operations Performed by Authorized Personnel
3.9.1e
Enhanced Personnel Screening
3.9.2e
Insider Threat Program
Show the 15 you already have
3.1.1e
Dual Authorization for Sensitive System Operations
3.1.2e
Restrict Access to Systems and System Components to Defined Security Domains
3.11.2e
Threat Hunting
3.11.3e
Advanced Automation and Analytics Capabilities
3.13.1e
Network Segmentation by Security Domain
3.13.2e
Concept of Least Privilege in System Engineering
3.13.3e
Diversification of System Components
3.13.4e
Use Trusted Communications Paths for Privileged Access
3.13.5e
Randomness in System Operations
3.13.6e
Verify Identity of Endpoint Hardware
3.14.2e
Monitor Organizational Systems with Specialized Capabilities
3.14.3e
Information Inputs Validation
3.4.2e
Automated Detection and Remediation of Unauthorized Software
3.5.2e
Password Manager Use
3.6.1e
Establish Security Operations Center (SOC)

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in African Union Malabo Convention to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair ยท Today's edition