NIST 800-171
U.S. standard protecting CUI in nonfederal systems
IATF 16949
Global standard for automotive quality management systems.
Quick Verdict
NIST 800-171 safeguards CUI confidentiality for defense contractors via contractual cybersecurity controls, while IATF 16949 mandates quality management certification for automotive suppliers using core tools like APQP and FMEA. Organizations adopt them for federal contract eligibility and OEM supply chain access.
NIST 800-171
NIST SP 800-171 Protecting CUI Nonfederal Systems
Key Features
- Protects CUI confidentiality in nonfederal systems
- Mandates SSP and POA&M documentation artifacts
- 110 requirements across 14 families (Rev 2)
- Supports CUI enclave scoping for boundary control
- Enforced via DFARS clauses for DoD contractors
IATF 16949
IATF 16949:2016
Key Features
- Mandates AIAG core tools (APQP, FMEA, PPAP, MSA, SPC)
- Non-delegable top management QMS responsibility
- Risk-based thinking with contingency planning
- Supplier development and second-party audits
- Product safety processes and traceability requirements
Detailed Analysis
A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.
NIST 800-171 Details
What It Is
NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3 is a U.S. government framework providing security requirements for protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) confidentiality in nonfederal systems. Tailored from NIST SP 800-53 Moderate baseline, it uses a control-based approach focused on scoping to CUI-processing components.
Key Components
- 17 families in Rev 3 (e.g., Access Control, Audit, Supply Chain Risk Management)
- ~97-110 requirements emphasizing confidentiality
- Derived from FIPS 200 and SP 800-53
- Compliance via SSP, POA&M, and SP 800-171A assessments (examine/interview/test)
Why Organizations Use It
- Mandatory for federal contractors via DFARS 252.204-7012
- Enables DoD contract eligibility and CMMC Level 2
- Reduces breach risks, builds supply chain trust
- Provides competitive edge in federal procurement
Implementation Overview
Phased approach: scope CUI enclave, gap analysis, implement controls (MFA, SIEM), document SSP/POA&M. Applies to contractors handling CUI; requires self/third-party assessments. Timelines 6-36 months based on size.
IATF 16949 Details
What It Is
IATF 16949:2016 is an international quality management system (QMS) standard for the automotive industry. It supplements ISO 9001:2015 with automotive-specific requirements, focusing on defect prevention, variation reduction, and supply chain consistency. The standard employs a risk-based thinking approach aligned with the PDCA cycle across Clauses 4–10.
Key Components
- Core pillars: context, leadership, planning, support, operation, performance evaluation, improvement.
- Automotive additions: core tools (APQP, FMEA, MSA, SPC, PPAP, Control Plans), product safety, supplier management, CSRs.
- Built on ISO 9001 high-level structure; mandates ~30 supplemental clauses.
- Certification via IATF-approved bodies with staged audits.
Why Organizations Use It
- Meets OEM contractual requirements for supply chain access.
- Reduces COPQ, warranty costs, recalls via prevention.
- Enhances risk management, process stability, stakeholder trust.
- Provides competitive edge in global automotive markets.
Implementation Overview
- Phased: gap analysis, core tool deployment, training, audits.
- Targets automotive suppliers (OEMs, Tiers 1–3); all sizes.
- Involves process mapping, leadership governance, supplier development; requires Stage 1/2 certification audits.
Key Differences
| Aspect | NIST 800-171 | IATF 16949 |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | CUI confidentiality in nonfederal systems | Automotive quality management and defect prevention |
| Industry | Defense contractors and federal supply chains | Automotive production and supply chain sites |
| Nature | Contractual cybersecurity requirements | Certification-based quality management standard |
| Testing | SP 800-171A examine/interview/test assessments | Stage 1/2 audits by IATF-approved bodies |
| Penalties | Contract ineligibility and SPRS score impact | Certification loss and OEM supply exclusion |
Scope
Industry
Nature
Testing
Penalties
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about NIST 800-171 and IATF 16949
NIST 800-171 FAQ
IATF 16949 FAQ
You Might also be Interested in These Articles...
What is DORA and which Requirements does the Standard define?
Discover DORA requirements for info security, strict authority monitoring, and steps to achieve compliance. Build a resilient organization with our detailed gui
The CIS Controls v8.1 Evidence Pack: What Auditors Ask For (and How to Produce Proof Fast)
Fail CIS Controls v8.1 audits due to missing evidence? Get the blueprint: exact artifacts auditors want, repository structure, and automation from security tool
Real-World ISO 27701 Success: Synthesized Case Studies, Metrics, and Lessons for Privacy Resilience
Real-world ISO 27701 success from Tribeca, Kocho: DSAR efficiency gains, risk score reductions, certification ROI. Synthesized metrics prove privacy resilience
Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM
Transform your compliance journey with our AI-powered assessment platform
Assess your organization's maturity across multiple standards and regulations including ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2, NIST, GDPR, and hundreds more. Get actionable insights and track your progress with collaborative, AI-powered evaluations.
Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages
EPA vs ISO 14064
Compare EPA standards (CAA, CWA, RCRA) vs ISO 14064: mandatory U.S. regs vs voluntary GHG verification. Key diffs, compliance strategies—master both now!
DORA vs PIPEDA
Discover DORA vs PIPEDA: EU financial resilience powerhouse meets Canada's privacy sentinel. Compare scopes, mandates & compliance for global ops mastery. Dive in now!
APPI vs U.S. SEC Cybersecurity Rules
APPI vs U.S. SEC Cybersecurity Rules: Compare Japan's data privacy law with SEC's incident disclosure mandates. Expert strategies for compliance, risk management & global ops.