ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security IncidentsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents covers 22.6% of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

24 of the 106 controls in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. 82 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.

22.6%
of the target already covered
24
controls evidenced
82
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.

60 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.

PR - Protect10 of 22 evidenced, 12 to do
DE - Detect5 of 11 evidenced, 6 to do
RC - Recover3 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
RS - Respond4 of 13 evidenced, 9 to do
ID - Identify1 of 21 evidenced, 20 to do
GV - Govern1 of 28 evidenced, 27 to do
Govern0 of 3 evidenced, 3 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.

ASD37-31NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02argued against and upheld
Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

Hunting analyses logs, events and other data to understand activity behind adverse events.

ASD37-28NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02argued against and upheld
Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

ASD requires automated and manual analysis of security events by a 24/7 operations capability.

ASD37-31NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03argued against and upheld
Information is correlated from multiple sources

ASD hunting explicitly draws on logs, events and other data sources together.

ASD37-31NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07argued against and upheld
Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis

ASD hunting is driven by knowledge of adversary tradecraft applied to collected data.

ASD37-32NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01argued against and upheld
Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events

Network intrusion detection using signatures and heuristics monitors traffic for anomalies.

ASD37-33NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01argued against and upheld
Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events

ASD captures network traffic to and from corporate computers and retains it for detection.

ASD37-30NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09argued against and upheld
Computing hardware and software are monitored to find potentially adverse events

Endpoint detection and response runs on all computers with centralised threat indicator analysis.

ASD37-29NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09argued against and upheld
Computing hardware and software are monitored to find potentially adverse events

Host based intrusion detection monitors computers for anomalous and known malicious behaviour.

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