ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security IncidentsC5 (Germany)

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents covers 15.7% of C5 (Germany)

19 of the 121 controls in C5 (Germany) are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. 102 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.

15.7%
of the target already covered
19
controls evidenced
102
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of C5 (Germany) your ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.

59 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. 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.

Where the gaps are

Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.

C5: Communication Security4 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
C5: Business Continuity Management2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
C5: Security Incident Management2 of 5 evidenced, 3 to do
C5: Human Resources2 of 6 evidenced, 4 to do
C5: Operations7 of 24 evidenced, 17 to do
C5: Identity and Access Management2 of 9 evidenced, 7 to do
C5: Asset Management0 of 6 evidenced, 6 to do
C5: Compliance0 of 4 evidenced, 4 to do
C5: Cryptography and Key Management0 of 4 evidenced, 4 to do
C5: Procurement, Development and Modification of Information Systems0 of 10 evidenced, 10 to do
C5: Dealing with Investigation Requests from Government Agencies0 of 4 evidenced, 4 to do
C5: Organisation of Information Security0 of 7 evidenced, 7 to do
C5: Portability and Interoperability0 of 3 evidenced, 3 to do
C5: Physical Security0 of 7 evidenced, 7 to do
C5: Product Safety and Security0 of 12 evidenced, 12 to do
C5: Security Policies and Instructions0 of 3 evidenced, 3 to do
C5: Control and Monitoring of Service Providers and Suppliers0 of 5 evidenced, 5 to do

Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.

Claims that held

A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.

ASD37-35C5-BCM-03argued against and upheld
Planning business continuity

Business continuity and disaster recovery plans covering a complete loss of computing capability are the documented planning required

ASD37-35C5-BCM-04argued against and upheld
Verification, updating and testing of the business continuity

Those plans are required to be tested, which is the verification this criterion requires

ASD37-32C5-COS-01argued against and upheld
Technical safeguards

Network intrusion detection using signatures and heuristics to identify anomalous traffic is the detection of irregular traffic required

ASD37-22C5-COS-03argued against and upheld
Monitoring of connections in the Cloud Service Provider's network

Segmentation and segregation denying traffic between systems unless required is the zoning and per service justification required

ASD37-08C5-COS-04argued against and upheld
Cross-network access

Denying direct internet connectivity and forcing traffic through a content checking proxy is the perimeter gateway required

ASD37-22C5-COS-06argued against and upheld
Segregation of data traffic in jointly used network environments

Network segmentation and segregation denying traffic between computers unless required is the traffic separation this criterion requires

ASD37-37C5-HR-01argued against and upheld
Verification of qualification and trustworthiness

Pre employment checks as part of personnel management are the trustworthiness verification required

ASD37-15C5-HR-03argued against and upheld
Security training and awareness programme

User education on applicable threats, reporting and the consequences of poor practice is the awareness programme required

Claims that did not hold

Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.

The full report

Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.

Buy this crosswalk