Framework overlap

Does ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents cover UK Bribery Act 2010?

You hold ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents and have been told to do UK Bribery Act 2010. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

20% of UK Bribery Act 2010 you already have

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents already covers about 20% of UK Bribery Act 2010, leaving 4 of 5 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 1 New work 4

No control in ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents maps directly to one in UK Bribery Act 2010. 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 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents reaches these. This is the list to scope.

UKBRIBE-1
Section 7 Strategic Risk Assessment and Adequate Procedures
UKBRIBE-2
Top-Level Commitment and Governance
UKBRIBE-4
Communication, Training, Awareness
UKBRIBE-5
Monitoring, Review, Reporting
Show the 1 you already have
UKBRIBE-3
Due Diligence on Third Parties

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents 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