42% of CNCF Security Technical Advisory Group (TAG) you already have
NIST SP 800-218 already covers about 42% of CNCF Security Technical Advisory Group (TAG), leaving
14 of 24 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 0
Likely covered 10
New work 14
No control in NIST SP 800-218
maps directly to one in CNCF Security Technical Advisory Group (TAG). 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 SP 800-218 reaches these. This is the list to scope.
CNCF-4C-CLUSTERCluster Layer Security
CNCF-COMP-AUDITSRegulatory Audits
CNCF-COMP-INDUSTRYIndustry-Specific Compliance
CNCF-DEP-INCIDENTIncident Response and Mitigation
CNCF-DEP-OBSERVABILITYObservability and Metrics
CNCF-DEP-PREFLIGHTPre-Flight Deployment Checks
CNCF-DIST-IMGHARDENImage Hardening
CNCF-DIST-PIPELINEBuild Pipeline Security
CNCF-RT-ACCESSRuntime Access (Identity, Authentication, Authorization)
CNCF-RT-AVAILABILITYRuntime Availability
CNCF-RT-COMPUTERuntime Compute Security (Orchestration, Hosts, Containers)
CNCF-RT-STORAGERuntime Storage Security
CNCF-SA-PRINCIPLESSecurity Principles
CNCF-SA-STACKSecurity Stack and Tooling
Show the 10 you already have
CNCF-4C-CLOUDCloud Layer Security
CNCF-4C-CODECode Layer Security
CNCF-4C-CONTAINERContainer Layer Security
CNCF-DEP-ARTIFACTSArtifact and Image Verification
CNCF-DEV-CHECKSSecurity Checks in Development
CNCF-DEV-TESTINGSecurity Testing
CNCF-DIST-IMGSCANImage Scanning
CNCF-DIST-MANIFESTHARDENContainer Application Manifest Hardening
CNCF-DIST-MANIFESTSCANContainer Application Manifest Scanning
CNCF-SA-THREATMODELThreat Modeling
How this is calculated
Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in NIST SP 800-218 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