FedRAMP ModerateNIST SP 800-218

FedRAMP Moderate covers 42.9% of NIST SP 800-218

18 of the 42 controls in NIST SP 800-218 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for FedRAMP Moderate. 24 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.

42.9%
of the target already covered
18
controls evidenced
24
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of NIST SP 800-218 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.

56 candidate mappings were examined and 0 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.

NIST SP 800-218: Access Control4 of 5 evidenced, 1 to do
Respond to Vulnerabilities2 of 3 evidenced, 1 to do
Produce Well Secured Software5 of 8 evidenced, 3 to do
Protect the Software2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
Prepare the Organization3 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
NIST SP 800-218: Cryptography1 of 4 evidenced, 3 to do
NIST SP 800-218: Information Security Policies1 of 5 evidenced, 4 to do
NIST SP 800-218: Asset Management0 of 5 evidenced, 5 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.

SA-15SP800-218-PO.1.1argued against and upheld
Define Security Requirements for Software Development

Developer must follow a documented process that explicitly addresses security requirements

SA-3SP800-218-PO.1.1argued against and upheld
Define Security Requirements for Software Development

An SDLC incorporating security requirements and considerations is the same obligation

SA-15SP800-218-PO.1.2argued against and upheld
Implement Security Requirements in the Toolchain

FedRAMP requires the developer to define and use documented development tools and tool configurations

SA-4SP800-218-PO.1.3argued against and upheld
Communicate Requirements to Third-Party Providers

Acquisition contracts must state security requirements to component and service providers

AT-3SP800-218-PO.2.2argued against and upheld
Training and Skills Maintenance

Role-based training for personnel with security responsibilities covers developer training and refresh

SA-10SP800-218-PS.1.1argued against and upheld
Protect All Forms of Code from Unauthorized Modification

Developer configuration management controls and audits changes to code and build items

CM-5(1)SP800-218-PS.1.1argued against and upheld
Protect All Forms of Code from Unauthorized Modification

Automated enforcement and auditing of change access gives the review and logging evidence

CM-5SP800-218-PS.1.1argued against and upheld
Protect All Forms of Code from Unauthorized Modification

Access restrictions for change limit who may alter code and configuration items

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