Framework overlap

Does AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar cover OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025?

You hold AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and have been told to do OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

63% of OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025 you already have

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar already covers about 63% of OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025, leaving 3 of 8 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 4 Likely covered 1 New work 3

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar reaches these. This is the list to scope.

OWASPLLM-5
Data and Model Poisoning (LLM04)
OWASPLLM-7
LLM Governance, Inventory, Risk and Change Management
OWASPLLM-8
LLM Monitoring, Testing, Red Teaming, and User Education
Show the 5 you already have
OWASPLLM-1
Prompt Injection and System Prompt Leakage (LLM01 + LLM07)
OWASPLLM-2
Improper Output Handling and Misinformation (LLM05 + LLM09)
OWASPLLM-3
Sensitive Information Disclosure and Privacy (LLM02)
OWASPLLM-6
Excessive Agency and Unbounded Consumption (LLM06 + LLM10)
OWASPLLM-4
Supply Chain and Vector/Embedding Weaknesses (LLM03 + LLM08)

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar 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