C5 (Germany) covers 67% of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
71 of the 106 controls in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 35 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
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls. Holding C5 (Germany) already evidences 71 of them, so the work in front of you is 35 controls, not 106, which is 33% 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 71 controls of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 you do not have to implement again, which is $4.21 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 71 already evidenced are | 284 hours | 568 hours | 1,136 hours |
| and the 35 remaining are | 140 hours | 280 hours | 560 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 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.
146 candidate mappings were examined and 6 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 analyses logging data automatically including correlation of relationships between events.
C5 analyses log data against defined event criteria and reports identified events to the responsible departments.
C5 configures physical and virtual networks to restrict and monitor connections, reassessed at least annually.
C5 continuously measures building environmental conditions and informs responsible departments on excursion.
C5 requires log data identifying user access unambiguously at tenant level.
C5 verifies third party obligations through service reports, certificates and their incident records at a risk based cadence.
C5 analyses log data from the systems in scope automatically and reports identified events for action.
C5 requires documented management system scope covering the units, sites and processes delivering the service.
Claims that did not hold
6 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.
NIST CSF 2.0 GV.RM-07 held a different requirement when this was judged: characterising strategic opportunities as positive risks, not identifying improvements from risk assessments. Corrected against the issued core 2026-08-21. A judgement made against different text is void whatever its outcome.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
NIST CSF 2.0 GV.SC-07 held a different requirement when this was judged: understanding, recording, prioritising and monitoring supplier risk, not verifying supply chain risk management. Corrected against the issued core 2026-08-21. A judgement made against different text is void whatever its outcome.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
NIST CSF 2.0 ID.RA-08 held a different requirement when this was judged: vulnerability disclosure processes, not effectiveness of risk responses. Corrected against the issued core 2026-08-21. A judgement made against different text is void whatever its outcome.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
NIST CSF 2.0 RC.RP-04 held a different requirement when this was judged: establishing post-incident operational norms, not restoring critical functions to operational capability. Corrected against the issued core 2026-08-21. A judgement made against different text is void whatever its outcome.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
NIST CSF 2.0 RS.AN-08 held a different requirement when this was judged: estimating and validating an incident's magnitude, not root cause analysis. Corrected against the issued core 2026-08-21. A judgement made against different text is void whatever its outcome.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
NIST CSF 2.0 RS.AN-08 held a different requirement when this was judged: estimating and validating an incident's magnitude, not root cause analysis. Corrected against the issued core 2026-08-21. A judgement made against different text is void whatever its outcome.
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