C5 (Germany) covers 49.2% of NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1
94 of the 191 controls in NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 97 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 SP 800-161 Rev 1 has 191 controls. Holding C5 (Germany) already evidences 94 of them, so the work in front of you is 97 controls, not 191, which is 51% 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 94 controls of NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 you do not have to implement again, which is $3.18 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 94 already evidenced are | 376 hours | 752 hours | 1,504 hours |
| and the 97 remaining are | 388 hours | 776 hours | 1,552 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 SP 800-161 Rev 1 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.
217 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.
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.
Access management policy and role and rights concept set least privilege, approvals, reviews and privileged MFA.
Administration consoles run on separated networks reachable only with multi factor authentication.
Privileged access granted personally for a limited period, logged, with automatic alerting on misuse indicators.
All assigned rights reviewed at least yearly by reviewers who know the actual duties.
Privileged access adjusted within 48 hours and all other rights within 14 days when duties change.
Accounts unused for two months are locked automatically and revoked outright after six.
Defined procedures issue and amend accounts for internal staff, external staff and automated components.
Every provider risk assessed before it contributes, revalidated yearly against the information it handles.
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