FedRAMP ModerateAzure Security Benchmark

FedRAMP Moderate covers 78.8% of Azure Security Benchmark

67 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for FedRAMP Moderate. 18 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.

78.8%
of the target already covered
67
controls evidenced
18
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of Azure Security Benchmark your FedRAMP Moderate 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.

165 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.

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.

Endpoint Security3 of 3 evidenced
Privileged Access7 of 8 evidenced, 1 to do
DevOps Security6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
Incident Response6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
Logging and Threat Detection6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
Posture and Vulnerability Management6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
Governance and Strategy8 of 10 evidenced, 2 to do
Asset Management4 of 5 evidenced, 1 to do
Data Protection6 of 8 evidenced, 2 to do
Backup and Recovery3 of 4 evidenced, 1 to do
Identity Management6 of 9 evidenced, 3 to do
Network Security6 of 10 evidenced, 4 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.

CM-8ASB v3 AM-1argued against and upheld
Track asset inventory and their risks

A current component inventory with owners and defined information is the same requirement

CM-7ASB v3 AM-2argued against and upheld
Use only approved services

Restricting the use of functions, ports, protocols and services to those approved matches

MP-6ASB v3 AM-3argued against and upheld
Ensure security of asset lifecycle management

Sanitisation before disposal, release or reuse makes decommissioning secure

CM-8(1)ASB v3 AM-3argued against and upheld
Ensure security of asset lifecycle management

Inventory updates during installation and removal cover the decommission path

CM-8ASB v3 AM-3argued against and upheld
Ensure security of asset lifecycle management

Inventory ownership and accountability information is required and reviewed

CM-7(2)ASB v3 AM-5argued against and upheld
Use only approved applications in virtual machine

Preventing program execution blocks unauthorised software from running

CM-7(5)ASB v3 AM-5argued against and upheld
Use only approved applications in virtual machine

Deny all, allow by exception authorised software is the allow list requirement

CP-9ASB v3 BR-1argued against and upheld
Ensure regular automated backups

System backups at a defined frequency with retention and recovery objectives match directly

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