CIS Controls v8 covers 50% of NIST SP 800-218
21 of the 42 controls in NIST SP 800-218 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CIS Controls v8. 21 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.
This number is directional. It says how much of NIST SP 800-218 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.
46 candidate mappings were examined and 1 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.
The documented development process must address secure design and coding standards
Training developers in secure coding and application security is the identical requirement
Separating production and non production systems is the core development environment control
The secure configuration process covers end user devices including developer endpoints
A maintained inventory of third party components is a software bill of materials
Applying secure design principles in application architecture is the same design requirement
Threat modelling to identify attacker abuse and feed mitigations back is identical
Using vetted modules for security components instead of proprietary code is identical
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