Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 74.6% of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar

47 of the 63 controls in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 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.

74.6%
of the target already covered
47
controls evidenced
16
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

What this leaves you to do

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar has 63 controls. Holding Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 already evidences 47 of them, so the work in front of you is 16 controls, not 63, which is 25% 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 47 controls of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar you do not have to implement again, which is $6.36 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 47 already evidenced are188 hours376 hours752 hours
and the 16 remaining are64 hours128 hours256 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar your Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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.

116 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.

Data Protection9 of 11 evidenced, 2 to do
Identity & Access Management12 of 15 evidenced, 3 to do
Application Security6 of 8 evidenced, 2 to do
Security Foundations6 of 8 evidenced, 2 to do
Detection3 of 4 evidenced, 1 to do
Infrastructure Protection6 of 9 evidenced, 3 to do
Incident Response5 of 8 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.

CCM-SEF-08SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP01argued against and upheld
Identify key personnel and external resources

Keeping current points of contact for regulators and legal authorities is the external roster.

CCM-SEF-03SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP01argued against and upheld
Identify key personnel and external resources

A plan naming internal departments and business critical relationships is the internal roster.

CCM-SEF-03SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP02argued against and upheld
Develop incident management plans

An approved incident response plan naming the parties drawn in is this plan.

CCM-SEF-01SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP02argued against and upheld
Develop incident management plans

A governing document covering how incidents are managed spans detection to review.

CCM-SEF-01SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP03argued against and upheld
Prepare forensic capabilities

The governing document explicitly covers electronic discovery and cloud forensics.

CCM-SEF-04SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP04argued against and upheld
Develop and test security incident response playbooks

Testing response plans at planned intervals and updating them on results is this practice.

CCM-SEF-04SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP07argued against and upheld
Run simulations

Testing at planned intervals and after significant change is the simulation programme.

CCM-HRS-12SEC 11: How do you incorporate and validate the security properties of applications? | SEC11-BP01argued against and upheld
Train for application security

Function tuned training refreshed as procedures change is developer security training.

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