FedRAMP ModerateGDPR

FedRAMP Moderate covers 17.5% of GDPR

7 of the 40 controls in GDPR are already satisfied by evidence you collected for FedRAMP Moderate. 33 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.

17.5%
of the target already covered
7
controls evidenced
33
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of GDPR 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.

30 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.

Chapter IV - Controller and Processor6 of 16 evidenced, 10 to do
Chapter V - Transfers of Personal Data1 of 6 evidenced, 5 to do
Chapter II - Principles0 of 7 evidenced, 7 to do
Chapter III - Rights of the Data Subject0 of 11 evidenced, 11 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.

RA-7GDPR-Art.24argued against and upheld
Responsibility of the controller

Findings from assessments, monitoring and audits must be responded to, not merely recorded.

PL-2GDPR-Art.24argued against and upheld
Responsibility of the controller

System security and privacy plan documents the controls in place and is reviewed and updated annually.

CA-2GDPR-Art.24argued against and upheld
Responsibility of the controller

Annual independent third party assessment produces a report evidencing that the controls operate.

CA-5GDPR-Art.24argued against and upheld
Responsibility of the controller

Plan of action and milestones tracks remediation, so measures are reviewed and updated where necessary.

SA-8GDPR-Art.25argued against and upheld
Data protection by design and by default

Security and privacy engineering principles must be applied during development.

SA-3GDPR-Art.25argued against and upheld
Data protection by design and by default

The development life cycle must incorporate privacy considerations from the outset.

PL-8GDPR-Art.25argued against and upheld
Data protection by design and by default

A privacy architecture is developed, documented, maintained and reviewed annually.

AC-6GDPR-Art.25argued against and upheld
Data protection by design and by default

Least privilege makes restricted access the default position rather than an added control.

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