59% of ASEAN Data Management Framework you already have
Belgium CyberFundamentals already covers about 59% of ASEAN Data Management Framework, leaving
11 of 27 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 0
Likely covered 16
New work 11
No control in Belgium CyberFundamentals
maps directly to one in ASEAN Data Management Framework. 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 Belgium CyberFundamentals reaches these. This is the list to scope.
ADMF-1.2Data management function responsibilities
ADMF-1.3Business process function responsibilities
ADMF-1.5Executive direction and risk appetite
ADMF-3.1Identify and understand organisational data
ADMF-3.2Maintain a data inventory
ADMF-4.2Assess confidentiality, integrity and availability impact
ADMF-4.3Assess business impact categories
ADMF-5.5Manage and accept residual risk
ADMF-5.6Reference recognised security and privacy standards
ADMF-6.2Review controls associated with each category
ADMF-6.5Update policies, procedures and processes
Show the 16 you already have
ADMF-1.1Establish data management governance functions
ADMF-1.4Risk management function responsibilities
ADMF-2.1Leadership commitment in policy (who)
ADMF-2.2Define objectives, scope and considerations (what and why)
ADMF-2.3Establish the data management approach (how)
ADMF-2.4Embed data management in corporate governance and policy
ADMF-3.3Apply overarching categorisation considerations
ADMF-4.1Establish a data categorisation matrix
ADMF-4.4Assign datasets to risk tiers
ADMF-5.1Implement risk-based protection controls
ADMF-5.2Apply technical, procedural and physical safeguards
ADMF-5.3Protect data across the data lifecycle
ADMF-5.4Build a data protection control matrix
ADMF-6.1Define monitoring and measurement scope
ADMF-6.3Review categories assigned to datasets
ADMF-6.4Test data protection control effectiveness
How this is calculated
Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Belgium CyberFundamentals 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