Framework overlap

Does CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 cover Ontario Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)?

You hold CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and have been told to do Ontario Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

13% of Ontario Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) you already have

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 already covers about 13% of Ontario Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), leaving 7 of 8 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 1 New work 7

No control in CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 maps directly to one in Ontario Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). 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 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

AODACAN-1
AODA Accessibility Policy and Multi-Year Plan
AODACAN-3
Accessibility Training
AODACAN-4
Accessible Websites and Web Content - WCAG 2.0 Level AA
AODACAN-5
Accessible Formats, Communication Supports, Self-Service Kiosks
AODACAN-6
Employment Accessibility, Accommodation, Return to Work, Performance
AODACAN-7
Education, Training Resources, Educational Producers
AODACAN-8
Feedback Process, Emergency Procedures, Compliance Reporting
Show the 1 you already have
AODACAN-2
Accessible Procurement of Goods, Services, Facilities

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 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