Framework overlap

Does Belgium CyberFundamentals cover FBI CJIS Security Policy?

You hold Belgium CyberFundamentals and have been told to do FBI CJIS Security Policy. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

27% of FBI CJIS Security Policy you already have

Belgium CyberFundamentals already covers about 27% of FBI CJIS Security Policy, leaving 24 of 33 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 9 New work 24

No control in Belgium CyberFundamentals maps directly to one in FBI CJIS Security Policy. 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.

CJIS-1
Information Exchange Agreements
CJIS-15
Mobile Devices
CJIS-18
Security Assessment and Authorization
CJIS-20
System Acquisition
CJIS-3
Personnel Security
CJIS-5.1
Information Exchange Agreements
CJIS-5.10
System and Communications Protection
CJIS-5.11
Formal Audits
CJIS-5.12
Personnel Security
CJIS-5.13
Mobile Devices
CJIS-5.2
Security Awareness Training
CJIS-5.3
Incident Response
CJIS-5.4
Auditing and Accountability
CJIS-5.5
Access Control
CJIS-5.6
Identification and Authentication
CJIS-5.7
Configuration Management
CJIS-5.8
Media Protection
CJIS-5.9
Physical Protection
CJIS-AM-1
Account Management
CJIS-CM-1
Cloud Service Provider Controls
CJIS-IR-2
Notification to CJIS Systems Officer
CJIS-PE-2
Physically Secure Location
CJIS-SC-1
Boundary Protection
CJIS-SC-2
Wireless Network Protections
Show the 9 you already have
CJIS-10
System and Information Integrity
CJIS-14
Physical Protection
CJIS-16
Cloud Computing
CJIS-17
Risk Assessment
CJIS-19
Supply Chain Risk Management
CJIS-2
Security Awareness Training
CJIS-7
Configuration Management
CJIS-8
Media Protection
CJIS-9
System and Communications Protection

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