DORAISO 27001:2022

DORA covers 33.3% of ISO 27001:2022

31 of the 93 controls in ISO 27001:2022 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for DORA. 62 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.

33.3%
of the target already covered
31
controls evidenced
62
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 27001:2022 your DORA 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.

52 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, 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.

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.

Organizational controls23 of 37 evidenced, 14 to do
Technological controls7 of 34 evidenced, 27 to do
People controls1 of 8 evidenced, 7 to do
Physical controls0 of 14 evidenced, 14 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.

DORA-Art.65.1argued against and upheld
Policies for information security

A sound, comprehensive and well-documented ICT risk framework carries the security policy set.

DORA-Art.85.12argued against and upheld
Classification of information

Information assets and ICT assets must be classified as well as identified.

DORA-Art.95.15argued against and upheld
Access control

Access management is a named protection the entity must implement to minimise ICT risk.

DORA-Art.285.19argued against and upheld
Information security in supplier relationships

ICT third-party risk must be managed as an integral component under an adopted strategy.

DORA-Art.55.2argued against and upheld
Information security roles and responsibilities

Roles and responsibilities for all ICT-related functions must be set and allocated.

DORA-Art.305.20argued against and upheld
Addressing information security within supplier agreements

Security, data protection, availability and audit provisions are mandatory contract terms.

DORA-Art.285.21argued against and upheld
Managing information security in the ICT supply chain

Risk from the ICT service chain, including subcontracting, must be assessed and managed.

DORA-Art.285.22argued against and upheld
Monitoring, review and change management of supplier services

Provider arrangements must be managed on an ongoing basis and held in the register.

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