TheArtOfService
Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1GDPR

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 35% of GDPR

14 of the 40 controls in GDPR are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 26 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.

35%
of the target already covered
14
controls evidenced
26
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

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

46 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.

Chapter IV - Controller and Processor8 of 16 evidenced, 8 to do
Chapter III - Rights of the Data Subject4 of 11 evidenced, 7 to do
Chapter V - Transfers of Personal Data1 of 6 evidenced, 5 to do
Chapter II - Principles1 of 7 evidenced, 6 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-DSP-11GDPR-Art.12argued against and upheld
Transparent information, communication and modalities for rights

A working route for rights requests, fulfilled as applicable law requires.

CCM-DSP-11GDPR-Art.15argued against and upheld
Right of access by the data subject

Data subjects can request and obtain access to their personal data.

CCM-DSP-11GDPR-Art.16argued against and upheld
Right to rectification

Correction requests are accepted and fulfilled as law requires.

CCM-DSP-16GDPR-Art.17argued against and upheld
Right to erasure (right to be forgotten)

Deletion managed against legal requirements so data is not kept beyond need.

CCM-A&A-04GDPR-Art.24argued against and upheld
Responsibility of the controller

Each audit confirms and records compliance with every applicable statutory obligation.

CCM-GRC-01GDPR-Art.24argued against and upheld
Responsibility of the controller

Approved governance policies with leadership sponsorship, reviewed at least annually.

CCM-DSP-08GDPR-Art.25argued against and upheld
Data protection by design and by default

Privacy settings shipped enabled by default as applicable law requires.

CCM-DSP-07GDPR-Art.25argued against and upheld
Data protection by design and by default

Protection designed into systems and business practices from the outset.

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