ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents covers 21.5% of ISO 27002:2022
20 of the 93 controls in ISO 27002:2022 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. 73 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.
What this leaves you to do
ISO 27002:2022 has 93 controls. Holding ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents already evidences 20 of them, so the work in front of you is 73 controls, not 93, which is 78% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 20 controls of ISO 27002:2022 you do not have to implement again, which is $14.95 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 20 already evidenced are | 80 hours | 160 hours | 320 hours |
| and the 73 remaining are | 292 hours | 584 hours | 1,168 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 27002:2022 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.
62 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.
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.
ASD requires credentials removed from memory, caching limited and credential storage centralised.
ASD requires unique, complex, unpredictable passphrases per local administrator account using a tool such as LAPS.
ASD requires automated and manual analysis of security events, which is exactly event triage.
ASD requires restoration testing initially, annually and whenever IT infrastructure changes.
System recovery capabilities with known good operating environment images are ICT readiness.
ASD requires tested continuity and disaster recovery plans covering complete loss of computing capabilities.
ASD personnel management explicitly requires pre-employment checks proportional to the role.
User education on applicable threats, reporting and consequences of poor practice is role training.
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