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.
What this leaves you to do
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 has 300 controls. Holding Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 already evidences 103 of them, so the work in front of you is 197 controls, not 300, which is 66% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 103 controls of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 you do not have to implement again, which is $2.90 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 103 already evidenced are | 412 hours | 824 hours | 1,648 hours |
| and the 197 remaining are | 788 hours | 1,576 hours | 3,152 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
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.
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.
Identity and access management policy and procedures are the same policy artefact.
Automatic lock screen on managed endpoints is the same device lock.
Endpoint device policy and procedures govern mobile device access.
Access change and revocation is the account modification and removal requirement.
User access provisioning is the account creation and approval requirement.
Authorization mechanisms are the access control decision function.
Authorization mechanisms are the access enforcement requirement.
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.
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