Framework overlap

Does NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 cover DORA?

You hold NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and have been told to do DORA. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

50% of DORA you already have

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 already covers about 50% of DORA, leaving 13 of 26 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 11 Likely covered 2 New work 13

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

DORA-Art.16
Simplified ICT risk management framework
DORA-Art.18
Classification of ICT-related incidents and cyber threats
DORA-Art.23
Operational or security payment-related incidents
DORA-Art.24
General requirements for the performance of digital operational resilience testing
DORA-Art.26
Advanced testing of ICT tools, systems and processes based on TLPT
DORA-Art.27
Requirements for testers for the carrying out of TLPT
DORA-Art.29
Preliminary assessment of ICT concentration risk at entity level
DORA-Art.30
Key contractual provisions
DORA-Art.31
Designation of critical ICT third-party service providers
DORA-Art.45
Information-sharing arrangements on cyber threat information and intelligence
DORA-Art.50
Administrative penalties and remedial measures
DORA-Art.56
Data protection
DORA-Art.7
ICT systems, protocols and tools
Show the 13 you already have
DORA-Art.10
Detection
DORA-Art.11
Response and recovery
DORA-Art.12
Backup policies and procedures, restoration and recovery
DORA-Art.13
Learning and evolving
DORA-Art.14
Communication
DORA-Art.17
ICT-related incident management process
DORA-Art.19
Reporting of major ICT-related incidents
DORA-Art.5
Governance and organisation
DORA-Art.6
ICT risk management framework
DORA-Art.8
Identification
DORA-Art.9
Protection and prevention
DORA-Art.25
Testing of ICT tools and systems
DORA-Art.28
ICT third-party risk: general principles

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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