TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

See exactly how Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

295
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
90%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 90% coverage across 177 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 197 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls identifies 20 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 197 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 295 mapped controls across 17 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

A&A - Audit & Assurance(10 mappings)

CCM-A&A-01Audit and Assurance Policy and Procedures
→NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01Cybersecurity risk management policy is established based on context and strategy
CCM-A&A-02Independent Assessments2 targets
→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-02Improvements are identified from security assessments
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-09Integrity and accuracy of risk assessment results are verified
CCM-A&A-03Risk Based Planning Assessment
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-05Threats, vulnerabilities, likelihoods, and impacts are used to understand inherent risk
CCM-A&A-04Requirements Compliance
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements are understood
CCM-A&A-05Audit Management Process2 targets
→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-02Improvements are identified from security assessments
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-08Effectiveness of risk responses is assessed
CCM-A&A-06Remediation3 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-07Opportunities for improvements are identified from risk assessments
→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-02Improvements are identified from security assessments
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-06Risk responses are chosen, prioritized, planned, tracked, and communicated

AIS - Application & Interface Security(10 mappings)

CCM-AIS-01Application and Interface Security Policy and Procedures2 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01Cybersecurity risk management policy is established based on context and strategy
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06Secure software development practices are integrated throughout the SDLC
CCM-AIS-02Application Security Baseline Requirements
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied
CCM-AIS-03Application Security Metrics
→NIST-CSF-GV.OV-03Risk management performance is evaluated
CCM-AIS-04Secure Application Design and Development
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06Secure software development practices are integrated throughout the SDLC
CCM-AIS-05Automated Application Security Testing2 targets
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-01Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06Secure software development practices are integrated throughout the SDLC
CCM-AIS-06Automated Secure Application Deployment
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06Secure software development practices are integrated throughout the SDLC
CCM-AIS-07Application Vulnerability Remediation2 targets
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-01Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-06Risk responses are chosen, prioritized, planned, tracked, and communicated

+275 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
53.8%

57 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 49 are genuine gaps.

72.7%PR - Protect
50%GV - Govern
61.9%ID - Identify
54.5%DE - Detect
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 196 candidate mappings were examined and 3 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. This pair was additionally re-checked after CSA CCM v4.0.1 was rebuilt from the CAIQ v4.0.1 source on 2026-08-19: its mappings were originally judged when CCM carried no requirement text, a sample of 70 across the 21 CCM pairs found about 80 percent holding cleanly, and the two identified errors were corrected before release.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

Audit log monitoring and response analyzes events to understand activity.

Grounded in CCM-LOG-05 Audit Logs Monitoring and Response. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03 Information is correlated from multiple sources

Information is correlated from multiple sources. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: DE - Detect.

Every one of the 57 evidenced controls and 49 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1
51.8%

102 of 197 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 95 are genuine gaps.

66.7%DCS - Datacenter Security
71.4%STA - Supply Chain Management, Transparency & Accountability
47.4%DSP - Data Security & Privacy Lifecycle Management
69.2%LOG - Logging & Monitoring
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 203 candidate mappings were examined and 11 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. This pair was additionally re-checked after CSA CCM v4.0.1 was rebuilt from the CAIQ v4.0.1 source on 2026-08-19: its mappings were originally judged when CCM carried no requirement text, a sample of 70 across the 21 CCM pairs found about 80 percent holding cleanly, and the two identified errors were corrected before release.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: CCM-A&A-04 Requirements Compliance

GV.OC-03 requires legal, regulatory and contractual requirements be understood and managed.

Grounded in NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03 Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements are understood. 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 102 evidenced controls and 95 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 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
$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 90% 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5193 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs FedRAMP Moderate186 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs FedRAMP High186 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH184 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE183 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs C5 (Germany)182 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs ISO 27002:2022180 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs ISO 27001:2022180 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0106 mappingsFedRAMP High vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsFedRAMP Moderate vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsSOC 2 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0103 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 LOW vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0100 mappings

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 →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 has 197 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 177 overlapping controls (90% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management, where 14 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 197 total Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls, 177 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, representing 90% coverage. The remaining 20 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

20 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management with 14 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management (14 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

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.