ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents covers 12% of PCI DSS 4.0
30 of the 249 controls in PCI DSS 4.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. 219 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
PCI DSS 4.0 has 249 controls. Holding ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents already evidences 30 of them, so the work in front of you is 219 controls, not 249, which is 88% 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 30 controls of PCI DSS 4.0 you do not have to implement again, which is $9.97 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 30 already evidenced are | 120 hours | 240 hours | 480 hours |
| and the 219 remaining are | 876 hours | 1,752 hours | 3,504 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 PCI DSS 4.0 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.
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.
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.
Software application firewalls block incoming traffic that is malicious or unauthorised.
ASD segmentation denies traffic between computers unless required, restricting inbound flows.
ASD outbound application firewalls block traffic not generated by approved programs.
Denying direct internet connectivity restricts outbound flows to the proxy path only.
ASD requires segmentation and segregation between network zones of differing trust.
Corporate computers reach the untrusted internet only through a content-checking proxy.
Inbound software firewalls restrict traffic arriving from untrusted networks.
ASD segregation keeps sensitive systems unreachable from untrusted network segments.
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