CIS Controls v8Azure Security Benchmark

CIS Controls v8 covers 57.6% of Azure Security Benchmark

49 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CIS Controls v8. 36 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.

57.6%
of the target already covered
49
controls evidenced
36
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of Azure Security Benchmark your CIS Controls v8 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.

137 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.

Endpoint Security3 of 3 evidenced
Logging and Threat Detection6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
Backup and Recovery3 of 4 evidenced, 1 to do
Incident Response5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Posture and Vulnerability Management5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Asset Management3 of 5 evidenced, 2 to do
DevOps Security4 of 7 evidenced, 3 to do
Governance and Strategy5 of 10 evidenced, 5 to do
Network Security5 of 10 evidenced, 5 to do
Privileged Access4 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
Data Protection3 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
Identity Management3 of 9 evidenced, 6 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.

CIS-1.1ASB v3 AM-1argued against and upheld
Track asset inventory and their risks

Detailed asset inventory with owner and department is the same inventory evidence

CIS-1.1ASB v3 AM-3argued against and upheld
Ensure security of asset lifecycle management

Inventory records asset owner, department and approval, covering ownership tracking

CIS-2.5ASB v3 AM-5argued against and upheld
Use only approved applications in virtual machine

Allowlisting authorised software on assets is the same control as VM application allowlisting

CIS-11.2ASB v3 BR-1argued against and upheld
Ensure regular automated backups

Automated backups on a recurring schedule is the identical requirement

CIS-11.3ASB v3 BR-2argued against and upheld
Protect backup and recovery data

Protecting recovery data by encryption and access control is the same requirement

CIS-11.4ASB v3 BR-2argued against and upheld
Protect backup and recovery data

An isolated recovery instance is the immutability and ransomware defence sought

CIS-11.5ASB v3 BR-4argued against and upheld
Regularly test backup

Periodic recovery testing of backups is the identical requirement

CIS-3.2ASB v3 DP-1argued against and upheld
Discover, classify, and label sensitive data

A maintained sensitive data inventory is the discovery and inventory evidence

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