Azure Security BenchmarkISO 27701:2019

Azure Security Benchmark covers 16.7% of ISO 27701:2019

18 of the 108 controls in ISO 27701:2019 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Azure Security Benchmark. 90 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.

16.7%
of the target already covered
18
controls evidenced
90
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 27701:2019 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.

72 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.

PIMS-specific guidance related to ISO/IEC 27002, ISO 27701:201916 of 36 evidenced, 20 to do
Additional ISO/IEC 27002 guidance for PII processors, ISO 27701:20191 of 18 evidenced, 17 to do
Additional ISO/IEC 27002 guidance for PII controllers, ISO 27701:20191 of 31 evidenced, 30 to do
PIMS-specific requirements related to ISO/IEC 27001, ISO 27701:20190 of 23 evidenced, 23 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.

ASB v3 NS-86.10.1argued against and upheld
Network security management

Detecting and disabling insecure services and protocols is a required network control.

ASB v3 NS-36.10.1argued against and upheld
Network security management

Edge firewall inspecting inbound and outbound traffic with documented rules is a network control.

ASB v3 NS-26.10.1argued against and upheld
Network security management

Private endpoints and firewall rules are the security in network services requirement.

ASB v3 NS-16.10.1argued against and upheld
Network security management

Virtual network, subnet and security group segmentation is segregation in networks.

ASB v3 DS-16.11.1argued against and upheld
Security requirements of information systems

Threat modelling of application and pipeline is the security requirements analysis and specification.

ASB v3 DP-36.11.1argued against and upheld
Security requirements of information systems

Enforced TLS 1.2 or higher is exactly the requirement to encrypt personal data over untrusted networks.

ASB v3 NS-66.11.1argued against and upheld
Security requirements of information systems

Web application firewall in front of applications and APIs protects application service transactions.

ASB v3 GS-86.14.1argued against and upheld
Information security continuity

Backup and recovery strategy with recovery time and point objectives is the continuity planning.

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