Framework overlap

Does NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) cover FBI CJIS Security Policy?

You hold NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) and have been told to do FBI CJIS Security Policy. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

30% of FBI CJIS Security Policy you already have

NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) already covers about 30% of FBI CJIS Security Policy, leaving 23 of 33 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 4 Likely covered 6 New work 23

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) reaches these. This is the list to scope.

CJIS-1
Information Exchange Agreements
CJIS-15
Mobile Devices
CJIS-18
Security Assessment and Authorization
CJIS-20
System Acquisition
CJIS-5.1
Information Exchange Agreements
CJIS-5.10
System and Communications Protection
CJIS-5.11
Formal Audits
CJIS-5.12
Personnel Security
CJIS-5.13
Mobile Devices
CJIS-5.2
Security Awareness Training
CJIS-5.3
Incident Response
CJIS-5.4
Auditing and Accountability
CJIS-5.5
Access Control
CJIS-5.6
Identification and Authentication
CJIS-5.7
Configuration Management
CJIS-5.8
Media Protection
CJIS-5.9
Physical Protection
CJIS-AM-1
Account Management
CJIS-CM-1
Cloud Service Provider Controls
CJIS-IR-2
Notification to CJIS Systems Officer
CJIS-PE-2
Physically Secure Location
CJIS-SC-1
Boundary Protection
CJIS-SC-2
Wireless Network Protections
Show the 10 you already have
CJIS-17
Risk Assessment
CJIS-19
Supply Chain Risk Management
CJIS-8
Media Protection
CJIS-9
System and Communications Protection
CJIS-10
System and Information Integrity
CJIS-14
Physical Protection
CJIS-16
Cloud Computing
CJIS-2
Security Awareness Training
CJIS-3
Personnel Security
CJIS-7
Configuration Management

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) 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