C5 (Germany) covers 65.9% of Azure Security Benchmark
56 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 29 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
Azure Security Benchmark has 85 controls. Holding C5 (Germany) already evidences 56 of them, so the work in front of you is 29 controls, not 85, which is 34% 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 56 controls of Azure Security Benchmark you do not have to implement again, which is $5.34 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 56 already evidenced are | 224 hours | 448 hours | 896 hours |
| and the 29 remaining are | 116 hours | 232 hours | 464 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 Azure Security Benchmark your C5 (Germany) 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.
97 candidate mappings were examined and 1 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.
C5 keeps asset records complete, accurate and valid across the lifecycle with every change logged.
C5 requires documented approval plus complete permanent erasure or physical destruction of media before hardware leaves production.
C5 approves hardware into production only after verifying error handling, logging, encryption, authentication and authorisation are securely configured.
C5 issues privileged access personally for a risk based limited period, logs the activity and alerts on misuse indicators.
C5 lets the customer restrict which images its users may launch and hardens provider supplied images to industry standards.
C5 fixes backup scope, frequency and retention against recovery targets, mandates encryption of backups and recovery testing.
C5 holds backup copies at a remote location, encrypted in transit, matching the main site's physical security level.
C5 watches backup execution and has qualified staff investigate and rectify malfunctions promptly.
Claims that did not hold
1 proposed mappings for this pair were rejected. They are kept in the graph rather than deleted, so what was thrown out is as inspectable as what survived. A crosswalk that never rejects anything is not being judged.
judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-OPS-16 restricts access to the logging and monitoring components and controls their configuration changes; producing high quality alerts from log data is OPS-13
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
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