Framework overlap

Does NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 cover NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems?

You hold NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and have been told to do NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

63% of NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems you already have

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 already covers about 63% of NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems, 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 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems. 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.

NISTSP34-6
Plan Maintenance: Updates, Approval, Distribution, Configuration Control
NISTSP34-7
Telecommunications and External Service Resilience, Cloud and Third-Party Contingency
NISTSP34-8
Recovery Capability by Impact Level, RTO/RPO, and Integration with NIST RMF
Show the 5 you already have
NISTSP34-1
Contingency Planning Policy, Programme, and Plan Coordination
NISTSP34-2
Business Impact Analysis (BIA): Critical Resources, Recovery Priorities
NISTSP34-3
Preventive Controls and Recovery Strategies: Backup, Alternate Sites, Equipment
NISTSP34-4
Information System Contingency Plan (ISCP) Development
NISTSP34-5
Plan Testing, Training, and Exercises (TTE)

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