Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1vsISO 27018:2019
See exactly how Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls map to ISO 27018:2019. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 maps to ISO 27018:2019 with 6% coverage across 12 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 197 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls identifies 185 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 197 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 12 of 12 mapped controls across 8 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
CCC - Change Control & Configuration Management(3 mappings)
DCS - Datacenter Security(1 mappings)
DSP - Data Security & Privacy Lifecycle Management(1 mappings)
GRC - Governance, Risk & Compliance(1 mappings)
HRS - Human Resources Security(1 mappings)
IAM - Identity & Access Management(2 mappings)
IVS - Infrastructure & Virtualization Security(1 mappings)
LOG - Logging & Monitoring(2 mappings)
A Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 to ISO 27018:2019 crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO 27018:2019 controls your existing Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- 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 6% in the header counts how many Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ISO 27018:2019 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.
Related Comparisons
Other Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 comparisons
Other ISO 27018:2019 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 and ISO 27018:2019?
Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 has 197 controls across its framework, while ISO 27018:2019 covers 84 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 12 overlapping controls (6% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management, where 21 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls have no direct ISO 27018:2019 equivalent.
How many controls map between Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 and ISO 27018:2019?
Of 197 total Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls, 12 map directly to ISO 27018:2019 controls, representing 6% coverage. The remaining 185 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 to ISO 27018:2019?
185 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27018:2019. The highest concentration of gaps is in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management with 21 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 and ISO 27018:2019?
The domain with the highest gap count is CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management (21 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
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.