Framework overlap

Does Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Australia) cover NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3?

You hold Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Australia) and have been told to do NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

49% of NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 you already have

Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Australia) already covers about 49% of NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3, leaving 18 of 35 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 3 Likely covered 14 New work 18

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Australia) reaches these. This is the list to scope.

3.1
Physical Security
3.1.1
Authorized Access Control
3.1.2
Transaction and Function Control
3.13
Deploy a Data Loss Prevention Solution
3.13.1
Boundary Protection Assessment
3.14
Log Sensitive Data Access
3.15
Planning
3.2
Establish and Maintain a Data Inventory
3.4
Enforce Data Retention
3.8
Document Data Flows
3.9
Encrypt Data on Removable Media
3.9.1
Personnel Screening Assessment
FEDRAMP-SC-1
System and Communications Protection Policy
FEDRAMP-SC-12
Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management
FEDRAMP-SC-13
Cryptographic Protection
FEDRAMP-SC-28
Protection of Information at Rest
FEDRAMP-SC-7
Boundary Protection
FEDRAMP-SC-8
Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
Show the 17 you already have
3.16
System and Services Acquisition
3.17
Supply Chain Risk Management
3.5
Securely Dispose of Data
3.10
Encrypt Sensitive Data in Transit
3.11
Encrypt Sensitive Data at Rest
3.12
Segment Data Processing and Storage Based on Sensitivity
3.2.1
Account data storage minimised
3.3
Configure Data Access Control Lists
3.3.1
Audit Record Creation
3.6
Encrypt Data on End-User Devices
3.6.1
Incident Response Capability
3.7
Establish and Maintain a Data Classification Scheme
3.7.1
Key generation procedures
FEDRAMP-CM-1
Configuration Management Policy
FEDRAMP-CM-2
Baseline Configuration
FEDRAMP-CM-6
Configuration Settings
FEDRAMP-CP-9
System Backup

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Australia) 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