Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1DORA

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 57.7% of DORA

15 of the 26 controls in DORA are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 11 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.

57.7%
of the target already covered
15
controls evidenced
11
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

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

79 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 Management9 of 11 evidenced, 2 to do
DORA Chapters VI-VII: Information Sharing, Penalties and Data Protection2 of 3 evidenced, 1 to do
DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management2 of 4 evidenced, 2 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

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-LOG-13DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

Immediate reporting of monitoring system failures and anomalies supplies a further layer of control.

CCM-LOG-05DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

Reviewing logs for activity outside expected patterns and acting within a set time is anomaly detection.

CCM-LOG-03DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

Alerting stakeholders when security events cross defined thresholds is the alert threshold and detection duty.

CCM-BCR-09DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

An approved disaster response plan updated annually is the response measures and procedures duty.

CCM-BCR-06DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

An annual live exercise repeated on significant change, fed back into the plans, is the regular testing duty.

CCM-BCR-04DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

An approved, communicated and maintained business continuity plan implementing the strategies is the recovery plan.

CCM-BCR-01DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

Approved business continuity and operational resilience policies reviewed annually is the ICT continuity policy.

CCM-BCR-08DORA-Art.12argued against and upheld
Backup policies and procedures, restoration and recovery

Backups on a defined cycle, protected, with restore testing proving recovery, is the backup and restoration duty.

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