TheArtOfService
HIPAA Security RuleAzure Security Benchmark

HIPAA Security Rule covers 38.8% of Azure Security Benchmark

33 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for HIPAA Security Rule. 52 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.

38.8%
of the target already covered
33
controls evidenced
52
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of Azure Security Benchmark your HIPAA Security Rule 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.

65 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.

Endpoint Security3 of 3 evidenced
Logging and Threat Detection6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
Backup and Recovery3 of 4 evidenced, 1 to do
Privileged Access5 of 8 evidenced, 3 to do
Incident Response4 of 7 evidenced, 3 to do
Governance and Strategy4 of 10 evidenced, 6 to do
Data Protection3 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
Identity Management3 of 9 evidenced, 6 to do
Asset Management1 of 5 evidenced, 4 to do
Network Security1 of 10 evidenced, 9 to do
DevOps Security0 of 7 evidenced, 7 to do
Posture and Vulnerability Management0 of 7 evidenced, 7 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.

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

Device and media controls govern receipt, movement and removal of hardware.

164.308(a)(7)(ii)(A)ASB v3 BR-1argued against and upheld
Ensure regular automated backups

Data backup plan requires retrievable exact copies of health information.

164.310(d)(2)(iv)ASB v3 BR-2argued against and upheld
Protect backup and recovery data

Backup copies required before equipment movement and stored securely.

164.308(a)(7)(ii)(D)ASB v3 BR-4argued against and upheld
Regularly test backup

Testing and revision procedures confirm the backup and recovery works.

164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)ASB v3 DP-2argued against and upheld
Monitor anomalies and threats targeting sensitive data

Activity review examines access reports for anomalous access to health data.

164.312(e)(2)(ii)ASB v3 DP-3argued against and upheld
Encrypt sensitive data in transit

Encryption of health information transmitted over an electronic network.

164.312(a)(2)(iv)ASB v3 DP-4argued against and upheld
Enable data at rest encryption by default

Encryption and decryption of stored electronic health information.

164.308(a)(5)(ii)(B)ASB v3 ES-1argued against and upheld
Use Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

Guarding against, detecting and reporting malicious software on systems.

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