Azure Security Benchmark covers 49% of CIS Controls v8
75 of the 153 controls in CIS Controls v8 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Azure Security Benchmark. 78 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
CIS Controls v8 has 153 controls. Holding Azure Security Benchmark already evidences 75 of them, so the work in front of you is 78 controls, not 153, which is 51% 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 75 controls of CIS Controls v8 you do not have to implement again, which is $3.99 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 75 already evidenced are | 300 hours | 600 hours | 1,200 hours |
| and the 78 remaining are | 312 hours | 624 hours | 1,248 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 CIS Controls v8 your Azure Security Benchmark 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.
143 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.
A continuously updated inventory of all cloud resources is the asset inventory for that estate.
Policy denying unapproved services with documented exceptions addresses unauthorised assets.
Discovering and querying all cloud resources is active discovery for that environment.
Deploying modern anti malware with real time scanning is this safeguard directly.
Ensuring signatures update rapidly and consistently is automatic signature updating.
Behaviour monitoring is named explicitly in the anti malware requirement.
Endpoint detection and response is behaviour based detection with automated response.
A documented backup and recovery strategy with RTO and RPO is the data recovery process.
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