Framework overlap

Does IEC 62443 cover OWASP ASVS?

You hold IEC 62443 and have been told to do OWASP ASVS. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

57% of OWASP ASVS you already have

IEC 62443 already covers about 57% of OWASP ASVS, leaving 6 of 14 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 8 New work 6

No control in IEC 62443 maps directly to one in OWASP ASVS. 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 IEC 62443 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

OWASPASVS-11
Business Logic Verification (V11)
OWASPASVS-12
File and Resources (V12)
OWASPASVS-13
API and Web Service Security (V13)
OWASPASVS-14
Configuration and Hardening (V14)
OWASPASVS-3
Session Management (V3)
OWASPASVS-5
Validation, Sanitization and Encoding (V5 + V5.3)
Show the 8 you already have
OWASPASVS-1
Architecture, Design and Threat Modelling (V1)
OWASPASVS-10
Malicious Code Verification (V10)
OWASPASVS-2
Authentication and Credential Storage (V2 + V2.4)
OWASPASVS-4
Access Control (V4 + V4.3)
OWASPASVS-6
Stored Cryptography (V6)
OWASPASVS-7
Error Handling and Logging (V7)
OWASPASVS-8
Data Protection (V8 + V8.3)
OWASPASVS-9
Communication Security (V9)

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in IEC 62443 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