Framework overlap

Does ISO 27043 cover ISO 27017:2015?

You hold ISO 27043 and have been told to do ISO 27017:2015. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

20% of ISO 27017:2015 you already have

ISO 27043 already covers about 20% of ISO 27017:2015, leaving 32 of 40 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 8 Likely covered 0 New work 32

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in ISO 27043 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

10.1
Cryptographic controls
11.1
Secure areas
11.2
Equipment
12.3
Backup
12.5
Control of operational software
12.7
Information systems audit considerations
14.1
Security requirements of information systems
14.2
Security in development and support processes
14.3
Test data
15.1
Information security in supplier relationships
15.2
Supplier service delivery management
16.1
Management of information security incidents and improvements
17.1
Information security continuity
17.2
Redundancies
18.1
Compliance with legal and contractual requirements
18.2
Information security reviews
2.1
Identical Recommendations | International Standards
2.2
Additional References
3.1
Terms defined elsewhere
4.2
Supplier relationships in cloud services
4.3
Relationships between cloud service customers and cloud service providers
4.4
Managing information security risks in cloud services
4.5
Structure of this standard
5.1
Management direction for information security
6.1
Internal organization
6.2
Mobile devices and teleworking
7.1
Prior to employment
7.2
During employment
8.1
Responsibility for assets
9.1
Business requirements of access control
9.3
User responsibilities
9.4
System and application access control
Show the 8 you already have
12.1
Operational procedures and responsibilities
12.2
Protection from malware
12.4
Logging and monitoring
12.6
Technical vulnerability management
13.1
Network security management
13.2
Information transfer
8.2
Information classification
9.2
User access management

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ISO 27043 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