C5 (Germany)HIPAA Security Rule

C5 (Germany) covers 76.1% of HIPAA Security Rule

51 of the 67 controls in HIPAA Security Rule are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 16 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.

76.1%
of the target already covered
51
controls evidenced
16
genuine gaps
2
claims rejected in review

What this leaves you to do

HIPAA Security Rule has 67 controls. Holding C5 (Germany) already evidences 51 of them, so the work in front of you is 16 controls, not 67, which is 24% of the standard rather than all of it.

That is the whole claim. We do not know your hourly rate, how long a control takes you, or how many people you have, so there is no figure here in dollars or weeks. 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.

This number is directional. It says how much of HIPAA Security Rule 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.

87 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.

Administrative28 of 32 evidenced, 4 to do
Technical10 of 12 evidenced, 2 to do
Policies and Procedures4 of 5 evidenced, 1 to do
Physical6 of 12 evidenced, 6 to do
Organizational3 of 6 evidenced, 3 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.

C5-OIS-01164.306argued against and upheld
Security Standards: General Rules

C5 operates an ISO 27001 aligned management system with documented scope, statement of applicability and management review.

C5-OIS-01164.308(a)(1)(i)argued against and upheld
Security Management Process (Standard)

C5 operates an ISO 27001 aligned management system with documented scope, statement of applicability and management review.

C5-OIS-07164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A)argued against and upheld
Risk Analysis (Required)

C5 runs the risk handling process at least annually with risk owners reviewing treatment and residual risk.

C5-OIS-07164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B)argued against and upheld
Risk Management (Required)

C5 runs the risk handling process at least annually with risk owners reviewing treatment and residual risk.

C5-OIS-06164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B)argued against and upheld
Risk Management (Required)

C5's risk procedure covers identification with named owners, likelihood and impact analysis, acceptance criteria and treatment.

C5-HR-04164.308(a)(1)(ii)(C)argued against and upheld
Sanction Policy (Required)

C5 applies a defined disciplinary policy on breach, with possible sanctions made known in advance and each case documented.

C5-OPS-13164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)argued against and upheld
Information System Activity Review (Required)

C5 analyses logging data automatically against defined event criteria, correlates related events and reports them for prompt action.

C5-OIS-02164.308(a)(2)argued against and upheld
Assigned Security Responsibility (Standard)

C5 has top management adopt a security policy that sets out the security organisation and its accountabilities.

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.

C5-IDM-03164.308(a)(5)(ii)(C)
Log-in Monitoring (Addressable)

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; C5 requires no monitoring of logon attempts or reporting of discrepancies

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

C5-IDM-07164.312(c)(1)
Integrity (Standard)

judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-IDM-07 requires the customer be notified of provider access to unencrypted data; it provides no protection against improper alteration or destruction

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