Organizations increasingly face requirements for multiple compliance frameworks—SOC 2 for enterprise customers, ISO 27001 for international business, HIPAA for healthcare data, and PCI-DSS for payment processing. Managing these separately creates redundant work and inconsistent controls. Multi-framework compliance mapping enables efficient, unified compliance that satisfies multiple frameworks with shared controls and evidence.
Understanding Multi-Framework Compliance
Rather than building separate compliance programs, multi-framework compliance identifies common control objectives and implements them once to satisfy multiple requirements.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Multi-Framework Compliance Architecture │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ TRADITIONAL APPROACH (Siloed) │
│ ═════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ │
│ │ SOC 2 │ │ISO 27001│ │ HIPAA │ │ PCI-DSS │ │ NIST │ │
│ │ Program │ │ Program │ │ Program │ │ Program │ │ Program │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ Controls│ │ Controls│ │ Controls│ │ Controls│ │ Controls│ │
│ │ Policies│ │ Policies│ │ Policies│ │ Policies│ │ Policies│ │
│ │ Evidence│ │ Evidence│ │ Evidence│ │ Evidence│ │ Evidence│ │
│ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ 5x work 5x cost 5x maintenance Inconsistency │
│ │
│ ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ UNIFIED APPROACH (Mapped) │
│ ══════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Unified Control │ │
│ │ Framework │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ • Common controls │ │
│ │ • Shared policies │ │
│ │ • Unified evidence │ │
│ │ • Central repository │ │
│ └───────────┬─────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ┌───────────────────┼───────────────────┐ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │
│ │ Framework- │ │ Framework- │ │ Framework- │ │
│ │ Specific │ │ Specific │ │ Specific │ │
│ │ Additions │ │ Additions │ │ Additions │ │
│ │ (SOC 2) │ │ (HIPAA) │ │ (PCI-DSS) │ │
│ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ │
│ │
│ Results: 1x work (mostly), consistent controls, efficient audits │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Framework Overlap Analysis
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Framework Overlap Heat Map │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Overlap percentage between common frameworks: │
│ │
│ │ SOC 2 │ ISO 27001 │ HIPAA │ PCI-DSS │ NIST CSF │ │
│ ────────────┼───────┼───────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────│ │
│ SOC 2 │ ██ │ 75% │ 65% │ 55% │ 80% │ │
│ ISO 27001 │ 75% │ ██ │ 70% │ 60% │ 85% │ │
│ HIPAA │ 65% │ 70% │ ██ │ 50% │ 70% │ │
│ PCI-DSS │ 55% │ 60% │ 50% │ ██ │ 60% │ │
│ NIST CSF │ 80% │ 85% │ 70% │ 60% │ ██ │ │
│ │
│ Legend: ██ = Same framework │
│ │
│ Key Insight: NIST CSF provides highest overlap with all others, │
│ making it an excellent foundation for unified frameworks. │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Control Domain Mapping
Map controls across frameworks by domain to identify overlap and unique requirements.
Access Control Mapping
// Access Control Cross-Framework Mapping
interface ControlMapping {
domain: string;
unifiedControl: UnifiedControl;
frameworkMappings: FrameworkMapping[];
}
interface UnifiedControl {
id: string;
name: string;
objective: string;
implementation: string;
}
interface FrameworkMapping {
framework: string;
controlIds: string[];
specificRequirements?: string[];
evidenceNeeded: string[];
}
const accessControlMapping: ControlMapping = {
domain: 'Access Control',
unifiedControl: {
id: 'UC-AC-001',
name: 'User Access Management',
objective: 'Ensure only authorized users have access to systems and data',
implementation: `
• Formal user registration and de-registration process
• Role-based access control (RBAC)
• Principle of least privilege
• Unique user identification
• MFA for privileged and remote access
• Regular access reviews (quarterly)
• Prompt access revocation on termination
`
},
frameworkMappings: [
{
framework: 'SOC 2',
controlIds: ['CC6.1', 'CC6.2', 'CC6.3'],
specificRequirements: [
'Logical access security software',
'New user registration authorization',
'System access modification based on need'
],
evidenceNeeded: [
'User provisioning tickets with approvals',
'Access review reports',
'Termination checklists',
'User access matrix'
]
},
{
framework: 'ISO 27001',
controlIds: ['A.9.1.1', 'A.9.1.2', 'A.9.2.1', 'A.9.2.2', 'A.9.2.3', 'A.9.2.5', 'A.9.2.6'],
specificRequirements: [
'Access control policy',
'Network access control',
'User registration/deregistration',
'Privilege management',
'Review of user access rights'
],
evidenceNeeded: [
'Access control policy document',
'User registration procedure',
'Access review evidence',
'Privileged access list'
]
},
{
framework: 'HIPAA',
controlIds: ['§164.312(a)(1)', '§164.312(a)(2)(i)', '§164.312(a)(2)(ii)', '§164.312(d)'],
specificRequirements: [
'Unique user identification (Required)',
'Emergency access procedure (Required)',
'Automatic logoff (Addressable)',
'Person or entity authentication'
],
evidenceNeeded: [
'User ID policy',
'Emergency access procedure',
'Session timeout configuration',
'Authentication mechanism documentation'
]
},
{
framework: 'PCI-DSS',
controlIds: ['7.1', '7.2', '7.3', '8.1', '8.2', '8.3'],
specificRequirements: [
'Access limited to need-to-know',
'Access control systems',
'Default deny-all',
'Unique user IDs',
'Strong authentication',
'MFA for all remote access'
],
evidenceNeeded: [
'Access control policy',
'User ID configuration',
'MFA configuration evidence',
'Access review reports',
'Role definitions'
]
},
{
framework: 'NIST CSF',
controlIds: ['PR.AC-1', 'PR.AC-3', 'PR.AC-4', 'PR.AC-5', 'PR.AC-6', 'PR.AC-7'],
specificRequirements: [
'Identity management',
'Remote access management',
'Access permissions management',
'Network integrity protection',
'User/device authentication',
'Identities and credentials provisioned'
],
evidenceNeeded: [
'Identity management procedures',
'Remote access policy',
'Network access controls',
'Authentication evidence'
]
}
]
};
Data Protection Mapping
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Data Protection Control Mapping │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ UNIFIED CONTROL: Data Encryption │
│ ════════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ Objective: Protect data confidentiality at rest and in transit │
│ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ SOC 2 │ │
│ │ CC6.1 - Encryption of data to protect confidentiality │ │
│ │ CC6.7 - Transmission protection │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Specific: Encryption methods, key management │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ ISO 27001 │ │
│ │ A.10.1.1 - Cryptographic controls policy │ │
│ │ A.10.1.2 - Key management │ │
│ │ A.13.2.1 - Information transfer policies │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Specific: Cryptographic policy, key lifecycle │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ HIPAA │ │
│ │ §164.312(a)(2)(iv) - Encryption (Addressable) │ │
│ │ §164.312(e)(1) - Transmission security │ │
│ │ §164.312(e)(2)(ii) - Encryption in transit │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Specific: PHI encryption, transmission security │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ PCI-DSS │ │
│ │ Req 3.4 - Render PAN unreadable (encryption or hash) │ │
│ │ Req 3.5 - Key management procedures │ │
│ │ Req 3.6 - Key management processes │ │
│ │ Req 4.1 - Strong cryptography for transmission │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Specific: PAN encryption, strong crypto only, key rotation │ │
│ │ (PCI-DSS is most prescriptive on encryption) │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ NIST CSF │ │
│ │ PR.DS-1 - Data at rest protected │ │
│ │ PR.DS-2 - Data in transit protected │ │
│ │ PR.DS-5 - Protections against data leaks │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Specific: Outcomes-based, flexible implementation │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ UNIFIED IMPLEMENTATION: │
│ • AES-256 encryption at rest (satisfies all frameworks) │
│ • TLS 1.2+ in transit (satisfies all frameworks) │
│ • FIPS 140-2 validated modules (required for FedRAMP, satisfies │
│ all others) │
│ • Key rotation annually (minimum), more frequent for PCI │
│ • Hardware Security Module (HSM) for key storage │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Comprehensive Control Mapping Table
// Master Control Mapping
interface MasterControlMapping {
controlDomain: string;
controls: UnifiedControlWithMappings[];
}
interface UnifiedControlWithMappings {
id: string;
name: string;
soc2: string[];
iso27001: string[];
hipaa: string[];
pciDss: string[];
nistCsf: string[];
implementation: string;
}
const masterControlMapping: MasterControlMapping[] = [
{
controlDomain: 'Governance',
controls: [
{
id: 'GOV-01',
name: 'Information Security Policy',
soc2: ['CC1.1', 'CC1.2'],
iso27001: ['A.5.1.1', 'A.5.1.2'],
hipaa: ['§164.316(a)'],
pciDss: ['12.1'],
nistCsf: ['ID.GV-1', 'ID.GV-2'],
implementation: 'Documented security policy approved by management, reviewed annually'
},
{
id: 'GOV-02',
name: 'Roles and Responsibilities',
soc2: ['CC1.3'],
iso27001: ['A.6.1.1'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(a)(2)'],
pciDss: ['12.4'],
nistCsf: ['ID.GV-2', 'ID.AM-6'],
implementation: 'Security responsibilities defined and communicated'
},
{
id: 'GOV-03',
name: 'Risk Management Program',
soc2: ['CC3.1', 'CC3.2', 'CC3.3'],
iso27001: ['A.6.1.2', '8.2', '8.3'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A)'],
pciDss: ['12.2'],
nistCsf: ['ID.RA-1', 'ID.RA-2', 'ID.RA-3', 'ID.RA-4', 'ID.RA-5', 'ID.RA-6'],
implementation: 'Annual risk assessment, ongoing risk management'
}
]
},
{
controlDomain: 'Access Control',
controls: [
{
id: 'ACC-01',
name: 'User Access Management',
soc2: ['CC6.1', 'CC6.2'],
iso27001: ['A.9.2.1', 'A.9.2.2', 'A.9.2.5', 'A.9.2.6'],
hipaa: ['§164.312(a)(1)', '§164.312(a)(2)(i)'],
pciDss: ['7.1', '7.2', '8.1'],
nistCsf: ['PR.AC-1', 'PR.AC-4'],
implementation: 'Formal access provisioning with approval workflow'
},
{
id: 'ACC-02',
name: 'Multi-Factor Authentication',
soc2: ['CC6.1'],
iso27001: ['A.9.4.2'],
hipaa: ['§164.312(d)'],
pciDss: ['8.3'],
nistCsf: ['PR.AC-7'],
implementation: 'MFA for privileged access and remote access'
},
{
id: 'ACC-03',
name: 'Access Reviews',
soc2: ['CC6.2'],
iso27001: ['A.9.2.5'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(a)(4)(ii)(C)'],
pciDss: ['7.1.4', '8.1.4'],
nistCsf: ['PR.AC-1'],
implementation: 'Quarterly access reviews with documented results'
}
]
},
{
controlDomain: 'Data Protection',
controls: [
{
id: 'DAT-01',
name: 'Data Classification',
soc2: ['CC6.1'],
iso27001: ['A.8.2.1', 'A.8.2.2'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A)'],
pciDss: ['9.6.1'],
nistCsf: ['ID.AM-5'],
implementation: 'Data classification scheme with handling procedures'
},
{
id: 'DAT-02',
name: 'Encryption at Rest',
soc2: ['CC6.1', 'CC6.7'],
iso27001: ['A.10.1.1', 'A.10.1.2'],
hipaa: ['§164.312(a)(2)(iv)'],
pciDss: ['3.4', '3.5', '3.6'],
nistCsf: ['PR.DS-1', 'PR.DS-5'],
implementation: 'AES-256 encryption for sensitive data at rest'
},
{
id: 'DAT-03',
name: 'Encryption in Transit',
soc2: ['CC6.7'],
iso27001: ['A.13.2.1'],
hipaa: ['§164.312(e)(1)', '§164.312(e)(2)(ii)'],
pciDss: ['4.1'],
nistCsf: ['PR.DS-2'],
implementation: 'TLS 1.2+ for all data transmission'
}
]
},
{
controlDomain: 'Logging & Monitoring',
controls: [
{
id: 'LOG-01',
name: 'Audit Logging',
soc2: ['CC7.2'],
iso27001: ['A.12.4.1', 'A.12.4.2'],
hipaa: ['§164.312(b)'],
pciDss: ['10.1', '10.2', '10.3'],
nistCsf: ['DE.AE-3', 'PR.PT-1'],
implementation: 'Comprehensive logging of security-relevant events'
},
{
id: 'LOG-02',
name: 'Log Retention',
soc2: ['CC7.2'],
iso27001: ['A.12.4.1'],
hipaa: ['§164.312(b)'],
pciDss: ['10.7'],
nistCsf: ['PR.PT-1'],
implementation: '90 days online, 1 year archived (per strictest requirement)'
},
{
id: 'LOG-03',
name: 'Security Monitoring',
soc2: ['CC7.2', 'CC7.3'],
iso27001: ['A.12.4.1'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)'],
pciDss: ['10.6', '11.5'],
nistCsf: ['DE.CM-1', 'DE.CM-7'],
implementation: 'SIEM with alerting on security events'
}
]
},
{
controlDomain: 'Incident Response',
controls: [
{
id: 'INC-01',
name: 'Incident Response Plan',
soc2: ['CC7.4', 'CC7.5'],
iso27001: ['A.16.1.1', 'A.16.1.5'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(a)(6)'],
pciDss: ['12.10'],
nistCsf: ['RS.RP-1', 'RS.CO-1'],
implementation: 'Documented IR plan with roles and procedures'
},
{
id: 'INC-02',
name: 'Incident Reporting',
soc2: ['CC7.4'],
iso27001: ['A.16.1.2'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(a)(6)(ii)'],
pciDss: ['12.10.2'],
nistCsf: ['RS.CO-2', 'RS.CO-3'],
implementation: 'Incident reporting procedures with escalation'
},
{
id: 'INC-03',
name: 'Breach Notification',
soc2: ['CC7.5'],
iso27001: ['A.16.1.5'],
hipaa: ['§164.400-414'], // HIPAA-specific detailed requirements
pciDss: ['12.10.1'],
nistCsf: ['RS.CO-5'],
implementation: 'Breach notification per regulatory requirements'
}
]
},
{
controlDomain: 'Vendor Management',
controls: [
{
id: 'VEN-01',
name: 'Vendor Assessment',
soc2: ['CC9.2'],
iso27001: ['A.15.1.1', 'A.15.1.2'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(b)(1)'],
pciDss: ['12.8'],
nistCsf: ['ID.SC-1', 'ID.SC-2'],
implementation: 'Security assessment of vendors before engagement'
},
{
id: 'VEN-02',
name: 'Vendor Contracts',
soc2: ['CC9.2'],
iso27001: ['A.15.1.2'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(b)(1)', '§164.314(a)'], // BAA requirement
pciDss: ['12.8.2'],
nistCsf: ['ID.SC-3'],
implementation: 'Security requirements in vendor contracts/BAAs'
}
]
},
{
controlDomain: 'Business Continuity',
controls: [
{
id: 'BCM-01',
name: 'Business Continuity Plan',
soc2: ['CC9.1'],
iso27001: ['A.17.1.1', 'A.17.1.2'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(a)(7)'],
pciDss: ['12.10.1'],
nistCsf: ['PR.IP-9'],
implementation: 'Documented BCP covering critical systems'
},
{
id: 'BCM-02',
name: 'Backup and Recovery',
soc2: ['CC9.1'],
iso27001: ['A.12.3.1'],
hipaa: ['§164.308(a)(7)(ii)(A)', '§164.310(d)(2)(iv)'],
pciDss: ['9.5.1'],
nistCsf: ['PR.IP-4'],
implementation: 'Regular backups with tested recovery procedures'
}
]
}
];
Building a Unified Control Framework
Implement a unified framework that serves as the foundation for all compliance requirements.
// Unified Control Framework Implementation
interface UnifiedControlFramework {
version: string;
lastUpdated: Date;
controlFamilies: ControlFamily[];
frameworkCoverage: FrameworkCoverage[];
}
interface ControlFamily {
id: string;
name: string;
description: string;
controls: UnifiedControl[];
}
interface UnifiedControl {
id: string;
name: string;
description: string;
objective: string;
implementation: {
owner: string;
implementationStatus: 'implemented' | 'in_progress' | 'planned' | 'not_applicable';
implementationDetails: string;
evidence: EvidenceReference[];
};
frameworkMapping: {
framework: string;
controlIds: string[];
gaps?: string[]; // Any framework-specific additions needed
}[];
testing: {
frequency: 'continuous' | 'daily' | 'weekly' | 'monthly' | 'quarterly' | 'annual';
method: 'automated' | 'manual' | 'hybrid';
lastTested: Date;
testResults: string;
};
}
// Framework coverage analysis
interface FrameworkCoverage {
framework: string;
totalControls: number;
mappedControls: number;
coveragePercentage: number;
gaps: ControlGap[];
}
interface ControlGap {
frameworkControlId: string;
description: string;
resolution: 'unified_control_exists' | 'framework_specific_needed' | 'not_applicable';
notes: string;
}
// Build unified framework from mappings
function buildUnifiedFramework(
targetFrameworks: string[]
): UnifiedControlFramework {
const framework: UnifiedControlFramework = {
version: '1.0',
lastUpdated: new Date(),
controlFamilies: [],
frameworkCoverage: []
};
// Group controls by domain
for (const domain of masterControlMapping) {
const family: ControlFamily = {
id: domain.controlDomain.toLowerCase().replace(/\s+/g, '_'),
name: domain.controlDomain,
description: `Controls related to ${domain.controlDomain}`,
controls: domain.controls.map(ctrl => ({
id: ctrl.id,
name: ctrl.name,
description: ctrl.implementation,
objective: `Ensure ${ctrl.name.toLowerCase()} requirements are met`,
implementation: {
owner: 'Security Team',
implementationStatus: 'implemented',
implementationDetails: ctrl.implementation,
evidence: []
},
frameworkMapping: [
{ framework: 'SOC 2', controlIds: ctrl.soc2 },
{ framework: 'ISO 27001', controlIds: ctrl.iso27001 },
{ framework: 'HIPAA', controlIds: ctrl.hipaa },
{ framework: 'PCI-DSS', controlIds: ctrl.pciDss },
{ framework: 'NIST CSF', controlIds: ctrl.nistCsf }
].filter(m => targetFrameworks.includes(m.framework)),
testing: {
frequency: 'monthly',
method: 'automated',
lastTested: new Date(),
testResults: 'Passing'
}
}))
};
framework.controlFamilies.push(family);
}
// Calculate coverage for each framework
for (const fw of targetFrameworks) {
const coverage = calculateFrameworkCoverage(framework, fw);
framework.frameworkCoverage.push(coverage);
}
return framework;
}
function calculateFrameworkCoverage(
framework: UnifiedControlFramework,
targetFramework: string
): FrameworkCoverage {
const allControls = framework.controlFamilies.flatMap(f => f.controls);
const mappedToFramework = allControls.filter(c =>
c.frameworkMapping.some(m => m.framework === targetFramework)
);
const frameworkRequirements = getFrameworkRequirements(targetFramework);
const mappedControlIds = new Set(
mappedToFramework.flatMap(c =>
c.frameworkMapping
.filter(m => m.framework === targetFramework)
.flatMap(m => m.controlIds)
)
);
const gaps: ControlGap[] = frameworkRequirements
.filter(req => !mappedControlIds.has(req.id))
.map(req => ({
frameworkControlId: req.id,
description: req.description,
resolution: 'framework_specific_needed',
notes: 'Requires framework-specific control'
}));
return {
framework: targetFramework,
totalControls: frameworkRequirements.length,
mappedControls: mappedControlIds.size,
coveragePercentage: (mappedControlIds.size / frameworkRequirements.length) * 100,
gaps
};
}
Framework-Specific Additions
Some requirements don't map to common controls and must be addressed separately.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Framework-Specific Requirements │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ HIPAA-SPECIFIC │
│ ══════════════ │
│ • Breach notification (specific timeframes: 60 days) │
│ • Business Associate Agreements (BAAs) │
│ • Notice of Privacy Practices │
│ • Designated Privacy/Security Officers │
│ • Right to access/amendment of records │
│ • Minimum necessary standard │
│ │
│ PCI-DSS-SPECIFIC │
│ ════════════════ │
│ • Cardholder data environment (CDE) segmentation │
│ • Primary Account Number (PAN) protection specifics │
│ • CVV/CVC never stored │
│ • Quarterly ASV scans │
│ • Annual penetration testing of CDE │
│ • PCI-specific security awareness │
│ • Requirement 9 physical security (for card-present) │
│ │
│ SOC 2-SPECIFIC │
│ ══════════════ │
│ • Trust Services Criteria (TSC) structure │
│ • Management's description of system │
│ • Complementary user entity controls (CUECs) │
│ • Subservice organization considerations │
│ • Type 1 vs Type 2 attestation requirements │
│ │
│ ISO 27001-SPECIFIC │
│ ══════════════════ │
│ • Annex SL management system structure │
│ • Statement of Applicability (SoA) │
│ • Continual improvement requirement │
│ • Internal audit program │
│ • Management review requirement │
│ • Certification/recertification cycle │
│ │
│ FedRAMP-SPECIFIC │
│ ════════════════ │
│ • US data residency │
│ • US-CERT incident reporting (1 hour) │
│ • FIPS 140-2 validated cryptography │
│ • Continuous monitoring (monthly scans, POA&M) │
│ • 3PAO assessment requirements │
│ • JAB or agency authorization process │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Managing Framework-Specific Requirements
// Framework-Specific Control Registry
interface FrameworkSpecificControl {
framework: string;
controlId: string;
name: string;
description: string;
noUnifiedEquivalent: boolean;
implementation: string;
evidence: string[];
}
const frameworkSpecificControls: FrameworkSpecificControl[] = [
// HIPAA-specific
{
framework: 'HIPAA',
controlId: '§164.404',
name: 'Breach Notification to Individuals',
description: 'Notify affected individuals within 60 days of breach discovery',
noUnifiedEquivalent: true,
implementation: 'Breach notification procedure with 60-day timeline, template letters, documentation requirements',
evidence: ['Breach notification procedure', 'Notification templates', 'Breach log']
},
{
framework: 'HIPAA',
controlId: '§164.308(b)(1)',
name: 'Business Associate Agreements',
description: 'Written contracts with business associates',
noUnifiedEquivalent: true,
implementation: 'BAA template, signed agreements with all vendors handling PHI',
evidence: ['BAA template', 'Signed BAAs', 'Vendor inventory with BAA status']
},
// PCI-DSS-specific
{
framework: 'PCI-DSS',
controlId: '3.2',
name: 'Sensitive Authentication Data Post-Authorization',
description: 'Do not store sensitive authentication data after authorization',
noUnifiedEquivalent: true,
implementation: 'System design prevents SAD storage, validation testing',
evidence: ['Data flow diagrams', 'Code review evidence', 'SAD storage prohibition policy']
},
{
framework: 'PCI-DSS',
controlId: '11.2',
name: 'Quarterly ASV Scans',
description: 'Quarterly external vulnerability scans by Approved Scanning Vendor',
noUnifiedEquivalent: true,
implementation: 'Contract with ASV, quarterly scan schedule, remediation process',
evidence: ['ASV contract', 'Quarterly scan reports', 'Remediation evidence']
},
// FedRAMP-specific
{
framework: 'FedRAMP',
controlId: 'IR-6(1)',
name: 'US-CERT Incident Reporting',
description: 'Report incidents to US-CERT within 1 hour',
noUnifiedEquivalent: true,
implementation: 'Incident response procedure includes US-CERT reporting, contact information, reporting templates',
evidence: ['IR procedure with US-CERT section', 'US-CERT contact info', 'Reporting evidence']
},
{
framework: 'FedRAMP',
controlId: 'SC-13',
name: 'FIPS-Validated Cryptography',
description: 'Use FIPS 140-2 Level 1+ validated cryptographic modules',
noUnifiedEquivalent: true,
implementation: 'FIPS-validated modules identified, CMVP certificates documented',
evidence: ['Cryptographic module inventory', 'CMVP certificates', 'Configuration evidence']
}
];
// Track framework-specific compliance separately
function getFrameworkSpecificStatus(
framework: string
): FrameworkSpecificStatus {
const specificControls = frameworkSpecificControls.filter(
c => c.framework === framework
);
return {
framework,
totalSpecificControls: specificControls.length,
implementedControls: specificControls.filter(c => isImplemented(c)).length,
controls: specificControls.map(c => ({
controlId: c.controlId,
name: c.name,
status: getControlStatus(c)
}))
};
}
Audit Efficiency Strategies
Maximize efficiency when undergoing multiple framework audits.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Multi-Framework Audit Strategies │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ STRATEGY 1: COMBINED AUDITS │
│ ════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ Schedule audits together with firms that handle multiple frameworks │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Week 1-2: Combined SOC 2 + ISO 27001 Fieldwork │ │
│ │ • Shared interviews (management, IT, HR, security) │ │
│ │ • Common control testing │ │
│ │ • Framework-specific deep dives as needed │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ Cost savings: 20-40% vs separate audits │
│ Time savings: 30-50% less staff time │
│ │
│ ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ STRATEGY 2: UNIFIED EVIDENCE REPOSITORY │
│ ═══════════════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Central Evidence Repository │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Evidence Item: Access Control Policy │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ File: access-control-policy-v3.2.pdf │ │ │
│ │ │ Tags: [SOC2-CC6.1] [ISO-A.9.1.1] [HIPAA-164.312]│ │ │
│ │ │ Collected: 2026-01-01 │ │ │
│ │ │ Expires: 2027-01-01 │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ When auditor requests SOC 2 CC6.1 evidence: │ │
│ │ → Repository returns all items tagged [SOC2-CC6.1] │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ STRATEGY 3: CONTROL MAPPING DOCUMENTATION │
│ ═════════════════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ Provide auditors with mapping documentation upfront: │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ "Our unified control UC-ACC-01 (User Access Mgmt) │ │
│ │ maps to your framework as follows: │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ SOC 2: CC6.1, CC6.2 │ │
│ │ ISO 27001: A.9.2.1, A.9.2.2, A.9.2.5 │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Evidence available: │ │
│ │ - Access provisioning procedure │ │
│ │ - Sample access request tickets │ │
│ │ - Quarterly access review report │ │
│ │ - Termination checklist samples" │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ Auditors appreciate clear organization and mapping │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Implementation Roadmap
Follow this roadmap to implement multi-framework compliance efficiently.
// Multi-Framework Implementation Roadmap
interface ImplementationPhase {
phase: number;
name: string;
duration: string;
objectives: string[];
deliverables: string[];
tips: string[];
}
const implementationRoadmap: ImplementationPhase[] = [
{
phase: 1,
name: 'Framework Selection & Gap Analysis',
duration: '2-4 weeks',
objectives: [
'Identify all required frameworks',
'Analyze overlap and unique requirements',
'Assess current control maturity',
'Prioritize implementation order'
],
deliverables: [
'Framework requirements matrix',
'Gap analysis report',
'Control mapping document (draft)',
'Implementation priority list'
],
tips: [
'Start with your most urgent framework deadline',
'Use NIST CSF as a common foundation',
'Identify quick wins (controls already in place)'
]
},
{
phase: 2,
name: 'Unified Framework Design',
duration: '3-4 weeks',
objectives: [
'Design unified control structure',
'Map controls to all frameworks',
'Identify framework-specific additions',
'Define evidence requirements'
],
deliverables: [
'Unified control framework document',
'Complete control mapping matrix',
'Framework-specific requirements list',
'Evidence collection plan'
],
tips: [
'Involve stakeholders from all affected areas',
'Design for the most stringent requirement',
'Plan for automation from the start'
]
},
{
phase: 3,
name: 'Policy & Documentation',
duration: '4-6 weeks',
objectives: [
'Write unified policies covering all frameworks',
'Develop procedures for each control',
'Create templates and forms',
'Establish documentation standards'
],
deliverables: [
'Unified policy library',
'Procedure documents',
'Forms and templates',
'Document control process'
],
tips: [
'Write policies to satisfy strictest framework',
'Use consistent naming and numbering',
'Include framework mapping in policy headers'
]
},
{
phase: 4,
name: 'Control Implementation',
duration: '8-16 weeks',
objectives: [
'Implement technical controls',
'Deploy security tools',
'Train personnel',
'Establish operational processes'
],
deliverables: [
'Implemented controls',
'Tool configurations',
'Training records',
'Operational runbooks'
],
tips: [
'Prioritize controls required by multiple frameworks',
'Build automation for continuous monitoring',
'Document implementation evidence as you go'
]
},
{
phase: 5,
name: 'Evidence Collection & Testing',
duration: '4-6 weeks',
objectives: [
'Collect evidence for all controls',
'Test control effectiveness',
'Validate framework mapping',
'Address gaps and findings'
],
deliverables: [
'Evidence repository (populated)',
'Control testing results',
'Validated mapping document',
'Remediation tracker'
],
tips: [
'Tag all evidence with framework mappings',
'Automate evidence collection where possible',
'Conduct internal audits before external'
]
},
{
phase: 6,
name: 'Audit Preparation & Execution',
duration: '4-8 weeks',
objectives: [
'Prepare audit evidence packages',
'Brief audit participants',
'Execute framework audits',
'Address findings'
],
deliverables: [
'Audit evidence packages',
'Audit reports/certifications',
'Finding remediation plan',
'Lessons learned document'
],
tips: [
'Schedule combined audits when possible',
'Provide auditors with mapping documentation',
'Track questions for future improvement'
]
}
];
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
| Pitfall | Description | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Over-Mapping | Claiming unified controls satisfy frameworks they don't fully address | Validate mappings with auditors or consultants |
| Lowest Common Denominator | Implementing minimal controls that technically satisfy but miss security intent | Design for most stringent requirement |
| Ignoring Framework Updates | Using outdated control mappings after frameworks update | Review mappings when frameworks update |
| Scope Confusion | Same unified control applied to different scopes per framework | Document scope per framework clearly |
| Single Point of Failure | One person knows all mappings | Document thoroughly, cross-train team |
| Evidence Mismatch | Evidence satisfies one framework but not another's specific requirements | Review evidence against each framework |
| Timing Issues | Audit periods don't align, creating evidence gaps | Plan audit schedules strategically |
Conclusion
Multi-framework compliance mapping transforms a potentially overwhelming compliance burden into an efficient, manageable program. Key success factors:
- Choose the right foundation - Start with a comprehensive base framework (NIST CSF or ISO 27001)
- Map thoroughly - Validate mappings with auditors before relying on them
- Design for the strictest - Implement controls that satisfy the most stringent requirements
- Automate evidence - Build collection and testing automation from the start
- Document clearly - Maintain mapping documentation that auditors can follow
- Plan audits strategically - Leverage combined audits for efficiency
With proper planning and execution, organizations can achieve and maintain multiple certifications with significantly less effort than managing them separately.
For related guidance, see our Compliance Frameworks Complete Guide and Continuous Compliance Monitoring Guide.
