C5 (Germany)PCI DSS 4.0

C5 (Germany) covers 35.7% of PCI DSS 4.0

89 of the 249 controls in PCI DSS 4.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 160 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.

35.7%
of the target already covered
89
controls evidenced
160
genuine gaps
4
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of PCI DSS 4.0 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.

182 candidate mappings were examined and 4 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.

Req 7: Restrict Access by Need to Know8 of 12 evidenced, 4 to do
Req 6: Secure Systems and Software9 of 19 evidenced, 10 to do
Req 10: Logging and Monitoring11 of 27 evidenced, 16 to do
Req 12: Information Security Policies15 of 37 evidenced, 22 to do
Req 5: Anti-Malware5 of 13 evidenced, 8 to do
Req 1: Network Security Controls7 of 19 evidenced, 12 to do
Req 9: Restrict Physical Access9 of 26 evidenced, 17 to do
Req 4: Protect Cardholder Data in Transit2 of 6 evidenced, 4 to do
Req 8: Identify and Authenticate Users9 of 29 evidenced, 20 to do
Req 3: Protect Stored Account Data7 of 29 evidenced, 22 to do
Req 11: Test Security Regularly5 of 21 evidenced, 16 to do
Req 2: Secure Configurations2 of 11 evidenced, 9 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-COS-021.1.1argued against and upheld
NSC policies and procedures documented

C5 designs, publishes and issues binding connection requirements for the provider network.

C5-OPS-231.2.1argued against and upheld
NSC configuration standards defined

C5 documents hardening requirements per component to generally accepted industry standards.

C5-DEV-031.2.2argued against and upheld
Changes to NSC reviewed and approved

C5 requires change rules with risk categorisation, approvals and documentation updates for every change.

C5-COS-071.2.3argued against and upheld
Network diagrams maintained

C5 keeps traceable current documentation of the logical network showing subnet allocation, zoning and segmentation.

C5-COS-041.3.1argued against and upheld
Inbound traffic to CDE restricted

C5 controls every network perimeter with gateways and permits cross network access only on a security assessment.

C5-COS-031.4.1argued against and upheld
NSCs between trusted and untrusted networks

C5 separates trusted from untrusted networks into risk based security zones and restricts those connections.

C5-COS-041.4.2argued against and upheld
Inbound traffic from untrusted networks restricted

C5 controls every network perimeter with security gateways and gates cross network access on a security assessment.

C5-OPS-1010.1.1argued against and upheld
Requirement 10 policies and operational procedures documented and maintained

C5 requires written logging and monitoring policies covering events, activation, purpose, retention and roles.

Claims that did not hold

4 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-OPS-1310.2.1
Audit logs enabled on system components

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; enabling and activating logs across components is OPS-10

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

C5-OPS-1610.4.1.1
Automated mechanisms for log review

judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-OPS-16 restricts access to the logging and monitoring components and puts their configuration under change management; automated log review is OPS-13

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

C5-IDM-077.2.6
All user access to query repositories of stored cardholder data is restricted as follows: • Via applications or other programmatic methods, with access and allowed actions based on user roles and least privileges. •

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 does not restrict how users query stored data

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

C5-IDM-038.3.4
Invalid authentication attempts are limited by: • Locking out the user ID after not more than 10 attempts. • Setting the lockout duration to a minimum of 30 minutes or until the user's identity

judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; the C5 criterion title names multiple failed logins but its basic criterion covers only dormancy, locking after two months unused and revoking after six; C5 sets no invalid attempt limit or lockout duration

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