Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 53.8% of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
57 of the 106 controls in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 49 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.
This number is directional. It says how much of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.
196 candidate mappings were examined and 3 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.
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.
Audit log monitoring and response analyzes events to understand activity.
Event triage establishes the impact and scope of an adverse event.
Alert generation to responsible stakeholders is the same requirement.
Event triage declares incidents against defined criteria.
Network defense monitors for network based attacks.
Surveillance system monitors the physical environment.
Regulatory mapping identifies applicable legal and contractual requirements.
Governance programme policy and procedures are the risk management policy.
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