CIS Controls v8DORA

CIS Controls v8 covers 38.5% of DORA

10 of the 26 controls in DORA are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CIS Controls v8. 16 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.

38.5%
of the target already covered
10
controls evidenced
16
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of DORA 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.

68 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, 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.

DORA Chapter II: ICT Risk Management7 of 11 evidenced, 4 to do
DORA Chapter III: ICT-Related Incident Management1 of 4 evidenced, 3 to do
DORA Chapter IV: Digital Operational Resilience Testing1 of 4 evidenced, 3 to do
DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management1 of 4 evidenced, 3 to do
DORA Chapters VI-VII: Information Sharing, Penalties and Data Protection0 of 3 evidenced, 3 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-13.1DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

Centralised security event alerting is the detection process enabling timely response.

CIS-13.2DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

A host based intrusion detection solution supplies a second layer of detection control.

CIS-13.3DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

A network intrusion detection solution detects anomalous network activity.

CIS-13.11DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

Tuning security event alerting thresholds is the defined alert thresholds duty.

CIS-17.4DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

An established and maintained incident response process is the response element.

CIS-11.1DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

An established and maintained data recovery process is the documented recovery plan duty.

CIS-11.5DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

Testing data recovery is the regular testing duty attached to recovery plans.

CIS-11.3DORA-Art.12argued against and upheld
Backup policies and procedures, restoration and recovery

Protecting recovery data through encryption and access control secures the backup set.

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