When it comes to cybersecurity frameworks, there are a handful to choose from. The choice of which and the granularity of its implementation can be mandated or voluntary. This sums up the general subject of the two National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) flavors discussed herein: NIST Risk Management Framework (RMF) vs. NIST Cyber Security Framework (CSF). Judging by the commonality of the acronym soup, there shouldn’t be much difference, right? The answer is no…but also yes.
At the macro level, NIST frameworks are intended to manage security, privacy, and supply chain risks applicable to an organization’s systems. Moving down to the micro level, the contrasts begin to emerge. Understanding them both in relation to each other can come in handy if you, as a cybersecurity professional, are asked for guidance which framework is best suited (or sometimes required) for your organization.
I developed the chart below to provide the similarities and differences and make it less painful than reading five paragraphs on the subject:
The takeaway is that both have a general focus on improving an organization’s cybersecurity posture. The breadth of scope and the granularity of action taken, though, are where the differences in focus emerge. The same comparison and contrast can be done between NIST RMF and ISO 27001, with the primary difference being the national vs. international applicability and similarity being that both result in a certification (formal for RMF, informal [unless a business requirement] for ISO 27001). Yet another comparison, this time between NIST RMF and CIS Controls, shows that the latter is more prescriptive in how to implement security and focus more on security baseline implementation (versus a comprehensive risk management process).
Overall, I believe the general perception is that all cybersecurity frameworks are distinct in their design, implementation and sustainment. In my opinion, though, they are all similar because they all have the same desired end state: a maximized cybersecurity posture. While the regulation or guidance on implementing them may also differ, the same general steps are taken, just with a different name or order of execution. Is this an oversimplification? Some might say yes, but I maintain that becoming a subject matter expert in any of cybersecurity framework means being well-postured and capable of successfully working with another one.