The Capability → Regulation Mapping view allows users to start from what the organization can actually do and understand which regulatory and assurance obligations are supported as a consequence.
In ECIL, this is the engineering-first perspective: capabilities are primary, regulations are derived. This approach fundamentally inverts traditional compliance thinking, putting technical reality before regulatory abstraction.
Core Philosophy
Rather than fragmenting your security program across multiple regulatory silos, this mapping demonstrates how a unified capability architecture naturally satisfies diverse compliance requirements.
The result is a more coherent, maintainable, and cost-effective approach to meeting regulatory obligations while building genuinely robust security infrastructure.
Purpose of This Mapping View
Translate Capabilities Into Coverage
Transform security capabilities into clear regulatory coverage metrics, enabling stakeholders to understand compliance impact in technical terms.
Avoid Implementation Silos
Eliminate regulation-by-regulation implementation silos that create redundant work, inconsistent controls, and architectural fragmentation.
Show Multi-Framework Value
Demonstrate how strengthening a single capability increases compliance across multiple frameworks simultaneously.
Enable Design Decisions
Support architectural choices without audit fragmentation, allowing engineering teams to build once and satisfy many requirements.
This view answers the critical question: "If we invest here, what obligations are we covering?"
This mapping starts from Security Capability Clusters (SCCs) and shows how each cluster supports obligations across multiple major frameworks and standards.
The mapping architecture is many-to-many, acknowledging the complex reality of regulatory overlap, but navigation is kept human-scale through carefully designed lenses and domains.
Critically, capabilities are not rewritten per framework. Instead, they are interpreted through regulatory lenses, preserving implementation integrity while satisfying diverse compliance requirements.
Access control policies, user authentication mechanisms, authorization processes, and privilege management systems ensuring least privilege enforcement.
NIS2 & DORA
Technical access restrictions, logical access protection, authentication requirements, and identity verification mechanisms for critical systems.
GDPR
Access limitation principles, authorization controls, and ensuring only authorized personnel can access personal data based on legitimate need.
SOC 2
Security and Confidentiality criteria including logical access controls, authentication mechanisms, and authorization processes.
Key Insight: Identity is the shared enforcement layer across regulations. Strong IAM capabilities satisfy obligations across every major framework simultaneously.
Comprehensive logging and monitoring requirements, event correlation, and security information management.
NIS2 & DORA
Detection capabilities, incident awareness, and situational awareness requirements for operational resilience.
GDPR & SOC 2
Breach detection obligations and continuous monitoring for control effectiveness validation.
Detection capabilities determine response credibility. Without robust logging and monitoring, incident response becomes reactive speculation rather than informed action.
Secure development lifecycle, change management controls, and configuration management requirements.
2
NIS2
Technical safeguards in development, secure coding practices, and change control mechanisms.
3
DORA
Resilience requirements, operational correctness validation, and change impact assessment.
4
GDPR
Data protection by design and default, integrity requirements, and accuracy obligations.
5
SOC 2
Processing Integrity criteria and change control effectiveness validation.
"Change is where most frameworks fail in practice. Strong development and change control capabilities are the difference between compliant-on-paper and compliant-in-operation."
Data protection controls, classification schemes, encryption requirements, and information lifecycle management.
NIS2
Protection of sensitive information, data security measures, and confidentiality controls for critical assets.
GDPR
Lawfulness of processing, security obligations, data subject rights, and privacy by design principles.
SOC 2
Confidentiality and Privacy criteria including data protection, access controls, and information security.
This cluster converts privacy promises into enforceable practice, bridging the gap between regulatory obligation and technical implementation. Without strong data protection capabilities, privacy compliance remains aspirational rather than operational.
ISO/IEC 27001: Supplier security requirements, vendor assessment, and contract controls
NIS2: Supply-chain security measures and vendor risk management
DORA: ICT third-party risk management and concentration risk assessment
GDPR: Processor oversight, sub-processor management, and contractual safeguards
SOC 2: Vendor assurance and subservice organization considerations
Backup, Restoration & Continuity (SCC-11)
ISO/IEC 27001: Business continuity management and backup requirements
NIS2: Continuity of operations and recovery capabilities
DORA: Resilience requirements, recovery time objectives, and testing obligations
SOC 2: Availability criteria including backup and restoration procedures
Critical Understanding: Dependencies define systemic risk exposure. Your security posture is only as strong as your weakest critical dependency or your slowest recovery path.
Start from regulation → Create control lists per framework → Duplicate implementation and evidence → Result in fragmented architecture
2
ECIL
Start from capabilities → Reuse implementation across frameworks → Preserve conceptual integrity → Enable architectural compliance
Architectural Compliance
This view enables architectural compliance, not checklist compliance. Rather than treating each framework as an isolated compliance exercise, it recognizes that security capabilities naturally satisfy multiple regulatory requirements simultaneously.
The result is a compliance approach that reinforces architectural coherence rather than undermining it through framework-specific implementations.
Engineering Alignment
By starting from what engineering teams actually build-capabilities-rather than abstract regulatory requirements, this mapping enables genuine alignment between security architecture and compliance outcomes.
Teams can make investment decisions based on capability maturity while understanding regulatory impact, rather than fragmenting resources across disconnected compliance initiatives.
How to Use This Page
01
Design Security Programs That Scale
Use this mapping to architect security programs that naturally satisfy multiple regulatory frameworks without duplication or inconsistency.
02
Explain Compliance Impact
Communicate the compliance impact of capability investments to stakeholders, demonstrating regulatory value of technical decisions.
03
Align Engineering & Compliance
Bridge the gap between engineering priorities and regulatory outcomes, ensuring technical roadmaps support compliance objectives.
04
Reduce Audit Duplication
Structurally reduce audit duplication by demonstrating how single implementations satisfy multiple framework requirements.
Capability → Regulation Mapping answers the question: "What do we gain-regulatorily-by building this capability?"
This perspective transforms compliance from a fragmented checklist exercise into a coherent architectural discipline that reinforces rather than undermines technical excellence.