CIS Controls v8Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1

CIS Controls v8 covers 33% of Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1

65 of the 197 controls in Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CIS Controls v8. 132 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.

33%
of the target already covered
65
controls evidenced
132
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

What this leaves you to do

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 has 197 controls. Holding CIS Controls v8 already evidences 65 of them, so the work in front of you is 132 controls, not 197, which is 67% 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 65 controls of Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 you do not have to implement again, which is $4.60 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 you4 hours8 hours16 hours
the 65 already evidenced are260 hours520 hours1,040 hours
and the 132 remaining are528 hours1,056 hours2,112 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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.

192 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. This pair was additionally re-checked after CSA CCM v4.0.1 was rebuilt from the CAIQ v4.0.1 source on 2026-08-19: its mappings were originally judged when CCM carried no requirement text, a sample of 70 across the 21 CCM pairs found about 80 percent holding cleanly, and the two identified errors were corrected before release.

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.

UEM - Universal Endpoint Management10 of 14 evidenced, 4 to do
AIS - Application & Interface Security5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
TVM - Threat & Vulnerability Management7 of 10 evidenced, 3 to do
IVS - Infrastructure & Virtualization Security6 of 9 evidenced, 3 to do
IAM - Identity & Access Management10 of 16 evidenced, 6 to do
SEF - Security Incident Management, E-Discovery & Cloud Forensics5 of 8 evidenced, 3 to do
LOG - Logging & Monitoring7 of 13 evidenced, 6 to do
DSP - Data Security & Privacy Lifecycle Management6 of 19 evidenced, 13 to do
STA - Supply Chain Management, Transparency & Accountability3 of 14 evidenced, 11 to do
HRS - Human Resources Security2 of 13 evidenced, 11 to do
CCC - Change Control & Configuration Management1 of 9 evidenced, 8 to do
BCR - Business Continuity Management & Operational Resilience1 of 11 evidenced, 10 to do
DCS - Datacenter Security1 of 15 evidenced, 14 to do
CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management1 of 21 evidenced, 20 to do
A&A - Audit & Assurance0 of 6 evidenced, 6 to do
GRC - Governance, Risk & Compliance0 of 8 evidenced, 8 to do
IPY - Interoperability & Portability0 of 4 evidenced, 4 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-16.1CCM-AIS-01argued against and upheld
Application and Interface Security Policy and Procedures

Secure application development process is the application security procedure set.

CIS-16.7CCM-AIS-02argued against and upheld
Application Security Baseline Requirements

Standard hardening templates for application infrastructure are the baseline requirements.

CIS-16.1CCM-AIS-04argued against and upheld
Secure Application Design and Development

Secure application development process is the same requirement.

CIS-16.10CCM-AIS-04argued against and upheld
Secure Application Design and Development

Applying secure design principles in application architecture is the same requirement.

CIS-16.12CCM-AIS-05argued against and upheld
Automated Application Security Testing

Code level security checks are the automated application testing requirement.

CIS-16.2CCM-AIS-07argued against and upheld
Application Vulnerability Remediation

Process to accept and address software vulnerabilities is the same requirement.

CIS-11.3CCM-BCR-08argued against and upheld
Backup

Protecting recovery data is the backup confidentiality and integrity requirement.

CIS-11.2CCM-BCR-08argued against and upheld
Backup

Automated backups are the backup requirement.

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