FedRAMP ModerateNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

FedRAMP Moderate covers 67% of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

71 of the 106 controls in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for FedRAMP Moderate. 35 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.

67%

of the target already covered

controls evidenced

genuine gaps

claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.

204 candidate mappings were examined and 32 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.

PR - Protect18 of 22 evidenced, 4 to do

DE - Detect9 of 11 evidenced, 2 to do

ID - Identify16 of 21 evidenced, 5 to do

RC - Recover5 of 8 evidenced, 3 to do

RS - Respond8 of 13 evidenced, 5 to do

GV - Govern15 of 28 evidenced, 13 to do

Govern0 of 3 evidenced, 3 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.

SI-4NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02argued against and upheld

Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

System monitoring analyses detected events to understand the associated activity.

AU-6NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02argued against and upheld

Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

Audit review and analysis examines logged events for indications of adverse activity.

SI-4(16)NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03argued against and upheld

Information is correlated from multiple sources

Correlating monitoring information from multiple sources is the same activity.

AU-6(3)NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03argued against and upheld

Information is correlated from multiple sources

Correlating audit repositories produces organisation-wide awareness across sources.

SI-4(5)NIST-CSF-DE.AE-06argued against and upheld

Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff

System-generated alerts notify defined personnel when indicators appear.

IR-8NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08argued against and upheld

Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria

The incident response plan defines the criteria for declaring an incident.

SI-4(4)NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01argued against and upheld

Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events

Monitoring inbound and outbound communications traffic covers network monitoring.

PE-6NIST-CSF-DE.CM-02argued against and upheld

The physical environment is monitored to find potentially adverse events

Monitoring physical access detects adverse events in the physical environment.

Claims that did not hold

31 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.

CA-7(4)NIST-CSF-GV.OV-03

Risk management performance is evaluated