Cross-Framework Mapping

AWS Well-Architected Security PillarvsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1

See exactly how AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls map to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

171
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
100%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar maps to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 with 100% coverage across 63 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 63 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls identifies 0 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Application Security.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 63 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 171 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

Security Foundations(20 mappings)

SEC01-BP01Separate workloads using accounts2 targets
CCM-IVS-05Production and Non-Production Environments
CCM-IVS-06Segmentation and Segregation
SEC01-BP02Secure account root user and properties2 targets
CCM-IAM-10Management of Privileged Access Roles
CCM-IAM-14Strong Authentication
SEC01-BP03Identify and validate control objectives4 targets
CCM-A&A-04Requirements Compliance
CCM-AIS-02Application Security Baseline Requirements
CCM-GRC-07Information System Regulatory Mapping
CCM-STA-11Internal Compliance Testing
SEC01-BP04Stay up to date with security threats and recommendations2 targets
CCM-GRC-08Special Interest Groups
CCM-TVM-04Detection Updates
SEC01-BP05Reduce security management scope3 targets
CCM-STA-04SSRM Control Ownership
CCM-STA-05SSRM Documentation Review
CCM-STA-06SSRM Control Implementation
SEC01-BP06Automate deployment of standard security controls2 targets
CCM-AIS-06Automated Secure Application Deployment
CCM-CCC-06Change Management Baseline
SEC01-BP07Identify threats and prioritize mitigations using a threat model3 targets
CCM-AIS-04Secure Application Design and Development
CCM-DSP-07Data Protection by Design and Default
CCM-GRC-02Risk Management Program
SEC01-BP08Evaluate and implement new security services and features regularly2 targets
CCM-GRC-03Organizational Policy Reviews
CCM-GRC-08Special Interest Groups

+151 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 686 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

The AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls your existing AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

Coverage does not run both ways. AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar into Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 lands at 23.9%, while Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 into AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar lands at 74.6%, on the same two control sets. That is not a rounding difference. It is the whole reason these are two separate reports: one asks what your AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar evidence buys you for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1, the other asks the reverse.

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar into Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1
23.9%

47 of 197 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar. 150 are genuine gaps.

68.8%IAM - Identity & Access Management
66.7%IVS - Infrastructure & Virtualization Security
26.3%DSP - Data Security & Privacy Lifecycle Management
57.1%AIS - Application & Interface Security
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 124 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: CCM-AIS-04 Secure Application Design and Development

Security testing embedded across build and release is direct secure development lifecycle evidence.

Grounded in SEC11-BP02 Automate testing throughout the development and release lifecycle. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: CCM-A&A-01 Audit and Assurance Policy and Procedures

Maintain approved audit and assurance policies, procedures and standards that are documented, communicated to the staff they bind, applied in practice, and reassessed at least once a year.

Every one of the 47 evidenced controls and 150 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 into AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar
74.6%

47 of 63 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 16 are genuine gaps.

80%Identity & Access Management
81.8%Data Protection
75%Application Security
75%Security Foundations
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 116 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP01 Identify key personnel and external resources

A plan naming internal departments and business critical relationships is the internal roster.

Grounded in CCM-SEF-03 Incident Response Plans. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP05 Pre-provision access

Pre-provision the access incident responders need, using temporary credentials and prepared elevation paths so investigation is not delayed by access requests during an event.

Every one of the 47 evidenced controls and 16 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1
$299
per framework pair, one time
  • Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
  • Every gap, with what it requires
  • Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number

Why this page shows two different percentages. The 100% in the header counts how many AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.

A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 686 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (309K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$149/month

Professional

  • Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • Unlimited full-text search
  • Framework self-assessment
  • PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

What are the key differences between AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar has 63 controls across its framework, while Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 197 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 63 overlapping controls (100% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Application Security, where 0 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls have no direct Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 equivalent.

How many controls map between AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?

Of 63 total AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls, 63 map directly to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls, representing 100% coverage. The remaining 0 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?

0 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls have no direct equivalent in Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. The highest concentration of gaps is in Application Security with 0 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?

The domain with the highest gap count is Application Security (0 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.