Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1ISO 27002:2022

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 74.2% of ISO 27002:2022

69 of the 93 controls in ISO 27002:2022 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 24 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.

74.2%
of the target already covered
69
controls evidenced
24
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 27002:2022 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.

164 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. 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.

Physical controls12 of 14 evidenced, 2 to do
People controls6 of 8 evidenced, 2 to do
Technological controls25 of 34 evidenced, 9 to do
Organizational controls26 of 37 evidenced, 11 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-015.1argued against and upheld
Policies for information security

Governance programme policy and procedures are the information security policy set.

CCM-HRS-025.10argued against and upheld
Acceptable use of information and other associated assets

Acceptable use of technology policy is the same requirement.

CCM-HRS-055.11argued against and upheld
Return of assets

Asset return on exit is the same requirement.

CCM-DSP-045.12argued against and upheld
Classification of information

Data classification control is the same requirement.

CCM-DSP-105.14argued against and upheld
Information transfer

Sensitive data transfer control is the information transfer requirement.

CCM-IAM-015.15argued against and upheld
Access control

Identity and access management policy is the access control policy.

CCM-IAM-135.16argued against and upheld
Identity management

Uniquely identifiable users is the core identity requirement.

CCM-IAM-035.16argued against and upheld
Identity management

Identity inventory is the identity management requirement.

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