C5 (Germany) covers 68% of NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3
66 of the 97 controls in NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 31 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 800-171 Rev 3 has 97 controls. Holding C5 (Germany) already evidences 66 of them, so the work in front of you is 31 controls, not 97, which is 32% 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 66 controls of NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 you do not have to implement again, which is $4.53 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 66 already evidenced are | 264 hours | 528 hours | 1,056 hours |
| and the 31 remaining are | 124 hours | 248 hours | 496 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 800-171 Rev 3 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.
124 candidate mappings were examined and 3 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 automatically locks accounts unused for two months, requires approval to reinstate and revokes them outright after six.
C5 requires every grant or change of account and entitlement to conform demonstrably to the approved role and rights concept.
C5 restricts service functions behind authorisation checks confirming the requester may perform the action.
C5 segregates the traffic of different customers at network level under a documented segregation concept.
C5 separates rights administration from access approval, development from testing and release, and monitors where separation is infeasible.
C5 reviews all assigned rights annually using reviewers who know the duties, correcting deviations within seven days.
C5 issues privileged access personally for a risk based limited period, logs the activity and alerts on misuse indicators.
C5 produces log data identifying user access unambiguously at tenant level to support forensic analysis after an incident.
Claims that did not hold
3 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 sets no invalid attempt limit
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 logging data, not the specification and periodic review of the event types to be logged, which is OPS-10
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-PS-07 measures the operating parameters of technical utilities and building environmental conditions; it does not monitor physical access or review entry logs, which is PS-04
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