Framework overlap

Does Canada ITSG-33 cover CCSDS 350.0-G-3?

You hold Canada ITSG-33 and have been told to do CCSDS 350.0-G-3. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

82% of CCSDS 350.0-G-3 you already have

Canada ITSG-33 already covers about 82% of CCSDS 350.0-G-3, leaving 3 of 17 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 14 New work 3

No control in Canada ITSG-33 maps directly to one in CCSDS 350.0-G-3. 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 Canada ITSG-33 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

CCSDS350-2.1
Information Security Overview
CCSDS350-5.7
Security Option Combinations
CCSDS350-6.4
Security Option Comparison
Show the 14 you already have
CCSDS350-2.2
System Security Policy
CCSDS350-2.3
Types of Threat
CCSDS350-3.1
Protocol Layer Security Requirements
CCSDS350-3.2
Mission Security Requirements
CCSDS350-4.1
Confidentiality
CCSDS350-4.2
Authentication
CCSDS350-4.3
Data Integrity
CCSDS350-4.4
Access Control
CCSDS350-4.5
Availability
CCSDS350-5.3
Data Link Layer Security
CCSDS350-5.4
Network Layer Security (IPSec)
CCSDS350-5.5
Transport Layer Security
CCSDS350-5.6
Application Layer Security
CCSDS350-6.5
Security Option Selection

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Canada ITSG-33 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