Framework overlap

Does ISO/SAE 21434 cover NSA Guidance for Transition to Quantum-Resistant Cryptography?

You hold ISO/SAE 21434 and have been told to do NSA Guidance for Transition to Quantum-Resistant Cryptography. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

17% of NSA Guidance for Transition to Quantum-Resistant Cryptography you already have

ISO/SAE 21434 already covers about 17% of NSA Guidance for Transition to Quantum-Resistant Cryptography, leaving 24 of 29 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 5 Likely covered 0 New work 24

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in ISO/SAE 21434 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

QRCM-3.2
CNSA 2.0 Algorithm Preference
QRCM-3.3
RSA/ECC Deprecation
QRCM-4.1
NSM-10 Compliance
QRCM-4.3
Quantum-Safe Product Categories
QRMIG-01
Migration Programme Establishment
QRMIG-02
Cryptographic Asset Discovery
QRMIG-03
Prioritisation and Risk Assessment
QRMIG-04
Vendor Engagement and Roadmaps
QRMIG-05
Pilot Implementation
QRMIG-06
Hybrid Algorithm Strategy
QRMIG-07
Cryptographic Agility
QRMIG-08
Public Key Infrastructure Update
QRMIG-09
Key Management Modernisation
QRMIG-10
Application Code Refactor
QRMIG-11
Cloud Service Transition
QRMIG-12
Identity Federation and Smart Cards
QRMIG-13
Network Device Transition
QRMIG-14
Operational Technology
QRMIG-15
Records Retention and Long Lived Data
QRMIG-16
Testing and Validation Programme
QRMIG-17
Communication and Stakeholder Reporting
QRMIG-18
Training and Capability Building
QRMIG-19
Post Migration Assurance
QRMIG-20
Decommissioning of Legacy Cryptography
Show the 5 you already have
QRCM-1.1
Cryptographic Asset Inventory
QRCM-1.2
Quantum-Vulnerable Identification
QRCM-1.3
Data Classification for Migration
QRCM-3.1
Hybrid Solution Deployment (2025-2030)
QRCM-4.2
TLS 1.3 Adoption

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ISO/SAE 21434 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