C5 (Germany) covers 57.3% of CMMC 2.0
63 of the 110 controls in CMMC 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 47 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.
This number is directional. It says how much of CMMC 2.0 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.
116 candidate mappings were examined and 2 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 requires every grant or change of account and entitlement to conform demonstrably to the approved role and rights concept.
C5's role and rights concept and access policy cover unique usernames, least privilege, segregation of duties, approvals and periodic review.
C5 requires state of the art session management that withstands known attacks and invalidates sessions detected as inactive.
C5 controls every network perimeter with security gateways and grants cross network access only on a security assessment.
C5 applies strong encryption and authentication to customer data transmitted over public networks.
C5 runs administration and management consoles on separated networks reachable only with multi-factor authentication.
C5 runs administration and management consoles on separated networks reachable only with multi-factor authentication.
C5 restricts service functions behind authorisation checks confirming the requester may perform the action.
Claims that did not hold
2 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; the C5 criterion title names failed logins but its basic criterion covers only dormancy, locking after two months unused and revoking after six; C5 caps no consecutive failed attempts
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-OPS-13 requires automated analysis and correlation of log data, not review and update of the set of events selected for logging, which is OPS-10
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