TheArtOfService
Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 34.3% of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5

103 of the 300 controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 197 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.

34.3%
of the target already covered
103
controls evidenced
197
genuine gaps
1
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 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.

306 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.

CM - Configuration Management11 of 14 evidenced, 3 to do
AU - Audit and Accountability9 of 15 evidenced, 6 to do
IR - Incident Response5 of 9 evidenced, 4 to do
PS - Personnel Security5 of 9 evidenced, 4 to do
PE - Physical and Environmental Protection11 of 22 evidenced, 11 to do
CA - Assessment, Authorization, and Monitoring4 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
RA - Risk Assessment4 of 9 evidenced, 5 to do
AT - Awareness and Training2 of 5 evidenced, 3 to do
AC - Access Control9 of 23 evidenced, 14 to do
CP - Contingency Planning4 of 12 evidenced, 8 to do
SR - Supply Chain Risk Management4 of 12 evidenced, 8 to do
PM - Program Management10 of 32 evidenced, 22 to do
IA - Identification and Authentication4 of 13 evidenced, 9 to do
SA - System and Services Acquisition5 of 17 evidenced, 12 to do
MP - Media Protection2 of 8 evidenced, 6 to do
PT - PII Processing and Transparency2 of 8 evidenced, 6 to do
SI - System and Information Integrity4 of 22 evidenced, 18 to do
SC - System and Communications Protection7 of 47 evidenced, 40 to do
PL - Planning1 of 8 evidenced, 7 to do
MA - Maintenance0 of 7 evidenced, 7 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-IAM-01NIST800-AC-1argued against and upheld
Access control policy and procedures

Identity and access management policy and procedures are the same policy artefact.

CCM-UEM-06NIST800-AC-11argued against and upheld
Device lock

Automatic lock screen on managed endpoints is the same device lock.

CCM-UEM-01NIST800-AC-19argued against and upheld
Access control for mobile devices

Endpoint device policy and procedures govern mobile device access.

CCM-IAM-07NIST800-AC-2argued against and upheld
Account management

Access change and revocation is the account modification and removal requirement.

CCM-IAM-06NIST800-AC-2argued against and upheld
Account management

User access provisioning is the account creation and approval requirement.

CCM-IAM-16NIST800-AC-24argued against and upheld
Access Control Decisions. [organization-defined] to ensure [organization-defined] are applied to each access request prior to access enforcement

Authorization mechanisms are the access control decision function.

CCM-IAM-16NIST800-AC-3argued against and upheld
Access enforcement

Authorization mechanisms are the access enforcement requirement.

CCM-IVS-03NIST800-AC-4argued against and upheld
Information flow enforcement

Restricting and encrypting communications between environments enforces information flow.

Claims that did not hold

1 proposed mappings for this pair were rejected. They are kept in the graph rather than deleted, so what was thrown out is as inspectable as what survived. A crosswalk that never rejects anything is not being judged.

CCM-AIS-04NIST800-SA-22
Unsupported System Components

judged against SA-17 content mislabelled as SA-22, does not hold against the real Unsupported System Components requirement

Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.

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