Framework overlap

Does NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 cover MDS2 (Medical Device)?

You hold NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and have been told to do MDS2 (Medical Device). Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

63% of MDS2 (Medical Device) you already have

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 already covers about 63% of MDS2 (Medical Device), leaving 3 of 8 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 5 New work 3

No control in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps directly to one in MDS2 (Medical Device). Everything counted as covered is covered because both map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather than a lookup.

What is genuinely new work

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

MDS2-Device-Identification-Inventory-MGMT-Configuration-Asset-Management
MDS2 Device Identification + MGMT + Configuration + Asset Management + HDO Inventory
MDS2-Malware-Detection-MLDP-System-Hardening-SAHD-Cybersecurity-Upgrades-CSUP-Patch-Management
MDS2 Malware Detection + MLDP + System Hardening + SAHD + Cybersecurity Upgrades + CSUP + Patch Management
MDS2-Scope-NEMA-HN-1-2019-HIMSS-AAMI-Manufacturer-Disclosure-FDA-Section-524B-Procurement-Voluntary
MDS2 Scope + NEMA HN 1-2019 + HIMSS + AAMI + FDA Section 524B + Procurement + Voluntary Industry Standard
Show the 5 you already have
MDS2-Audit-Logging-AUDT-Integrity-IGAU-Cybersecurity-Risk-CYBR-Monitoring
MDS2 Audit Controls + AUDT + Integrity + IGAU + Cybersecurity Risk + CYBR + Continuous Monitoring
MDS2-PHI-Data-Handling-DATA-Storage-STCF-Transmission-TXCF-TXIG-Encryption-FIPS
MDS2 PHI Handling + DATA + STCF Storage + TXCF Transmission + TXIG Integrity + Encryption + FIPS
MDS2-Person-Node-Authentication-Authorization-Auto-Logoff-AUTH-PAUT-NAUT
MDS2 Authentication + Authorization + Auto Logoff + PAUT + NAUT + AUTH + Identity Management
MDS2-Physical-Security-PLOK-Workstation-Disposal-Backup-DTBK-Disaster-Recovery
MDS2 Physical Security + PLOK + Workstation + Disposal + Backup + DTBK + Disaster Recovery
MDS2-Roadmap-Third-Party-RDMP-Security-Guidance-SGUD-SBOM-Vulnerability-Disclosure-Programme
MDS2 Roadmap + RDMP + Third Party + Security Guidance + SGUD + SBOM + Vulnerability Disclosure + Coordinated

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