Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1HIPAA Security Rule

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 67.2% of HIPAA Security Rule

45 of the 67 controls in HIPAA Security Rule are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 22 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.

67.2%
of the target already covered
45
controls evidenced
22
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of HIPAA Security Rule 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.

105 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. This pair was additionally re-checked after CSA CCM v4.0.1 was rebuilt from the CAIQ v4.0.1 source on 2026-08-19: its mappings were originally judged when CCM carried no requirement text, a sample of 70 across the 21 CCM pairs found about 80 percent holding cleanly, and the two identified errors were corrected before release.

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.

Administrative25 of 32 evidenced, 7 to do
Physical8 of 12 evidenced, 4 to do
Technical8 of 12 evidenced, 4 to do
Policies and Procedures2 of 5 evidenced, 3 to do
Organizational2 of 6 evidenced, 4 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-GRC-05164.308(a)(1)(i)argued against and upheld
Security Management Process (Standard)

Information security programme is the security management process.

CCM-GRC-02164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A)argued against and upheld
Risk Analysis (Required)

Risk management programme performs the periodic risk assessment.

CCM-GRC-02164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B)argued against and upheld
Risk Management (Required)

Risk management programme requires treatment of assessed risk.

CCM-LOG-05164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)argued against and upheld
Information System Activity Review (Required)

Audit log monitoring and response is the activity review requirement.

CCM-GRC-06164.308(a)(2)argued against and upheld
Assigned Security Responsibility (Standard)

Governance responsibility model names who owns the security programme.

CCM-IAM-06164.308(a)(3)(ii)(A)argued against and upheld
Authorization and Supervision (Addressable)

User access provisioning is the authorization workflow requirement.

CCM-HRS-01164.308(a)(3)(ii)(B)argued against and upheld
Workforce Clearance Procedure (Addressable)

Background screening policy and procedures are the clearance requirement.

CCM-IAM-07164.308(a)(3)(ii)(C)argued against and upheld
Termination Procedures (Addressable)

Access revocation on exit terminates access to protected data.

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