CIS Controls v8 covers 53.6% of NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3
52 of the 97 controls in NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CIS Controls v8. 45 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 CIS Controls v8 already evidences 52 of them, so the work in front of you is 45 controls, not 97, which is 46% 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 52 controls of NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 you do not have to implement again, which is $5.75 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 52 already evidenced are | 208 hours | 416 hours | 832 hours |
| and the 45 remaining are | 180 hours | 360 hours | 720 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 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.
129 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.
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.
A documented process revokes access on termination or role change, covering account removal.
A documented process grants access on hire and on privilege change, covering authorisation of accounts.
A maintained inventory of every account with owner and department is the record account management produces.
Dormant accounts are disabled after a defined period, the account disabling half of the requirement.
Data access control lists enforce approved authorisation at the resource level for sensitive data.
Role-based access control defines and enforces the access rights each role is approved to hold.
Access control is centralised through a directory or identity provider that enforces the approved authorisations.
Traffic filtering between network segments controls the flow of data between parts of the system.
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