TheArtOfService
AWS Well-Architected Security PillarCMMC 2.0

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar covers 50% of CMMC 2.0

55 of the 110 controls in CMMC 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar. 55 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.

50%
of the target already covered
55
controls evidenced
55
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of CMMC 2.0 your AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar 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.

151 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.

Incident Response3 of 3 evidenced
Risk Assessment3 of 3 evidenced
Configuration Management7 of 9 evidenced, 2 to do
Audit and Accountability6 of 9 evidenced, 3 to do
System and Information Integrity4 of 7 evidenced, 3 to do
Identification and Authentication6 of 11 evidenced, 5 to do
System and Communications Protection8 of 16 evidenced, 8 to do
Maintenance3 of 6 evidenced, 3 to do
Security Assessment2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
Personnel Security1 of 2 evidenced, 1 to do
Access Control10 of 22 evidenced, 12 to do
Media Protection2 of 9 evidenced, 7 to do
Awareness and Training0 of 3 evidenced, 3 to do
Physical Protection0 of 6 evidenced, 6 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.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP02AC.L2-3.1.1argued against and upheld
Authorized Access Control

Least privilege IAM policies evidence that access is limited to authorized users and processes.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP01AC.L2-3.1.1argued against and upheld
Authorized Access Control

Documented access requirements show who is authorized for each resource and action.

SEC 6: How do you protect your compute resources? | SEC06-BP03AC.L2-3.1.12argued against and upheld
Control Remote Access

Routing all interactive access through managed automation both controls and logs remote sessions.

SEC 9: How do you protect your data in transit? | SEC09-BP02AC.L2-3.1.13argued against and upheld
Remote Access Confidentiality

Enforced TLS 1.2 or higher provides the cryptographic protection of remote access sessions.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP02AC.L2-3.1.2argued against and upheld
Transaction & Function Control

IAM policies enumerate permitted actions, which is exactly transaction and function level restriction.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP09AC.L2-3.1.20argued against and upheld
External Connections

External ID, conditions and time bound roles are the control record for third party connections.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP07AC.L2-3.1.20argued against and upheld
External Connections

Access Analyzer external access findings are direct evidence that external connections are identified and validated.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP07AC.L2-3.1.22argued against and upheld
Control Public Information

Public access findings validated against documented intent evidence control of publicly accessible content.

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