ISO 27001:2022C5 (Germany)

ISO 27001:2022 covers 57% of C5 (Germany)

69 of the 121 controls in C5 (Germany) are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27001:2022. 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.

57%
of the target already covered
69
controls evidenced
52
genuine gaps
1
claims rejected in review

What this leaves you to do

C5 (Germany) has 121 controls. Holding ISO 27001:2022 already evidences 69 of them, so the work in front of you is 52 controls, not 121, which is 43% of the standard rather than all of it.

That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.

In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 69 controls of C5 (Germany) you do not have to implement again, which is $4.33 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.

In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.

If a control takes you4 hours8 hours16 hours
the 69 already evidenced are276 hours552 hours1,104 hours
and the 52 remaining are208 hours416 hours832 hours

Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.

This number is directional. It says how much of C5 (Germany) your ISO 27001:2022 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.

153 candidate mappings were examined and 4 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.

C5: Physical Security6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
C5: Asset Management5 of 6 evidenced, 1 to do
C5: Human Resources5 of 6 evidenced, 1 to do
C5: Security Incident Management4 of 5 evidenced, 1 to do
C5: Identity and Access Management7 of 9 evidenced, 2 to do
C5: Communication Security6 of 8 evidenced, 2 to do
C5: Security Policies and Instructions2 of 3 evidenced, 1 to do
C5: Procurement, Development and Modification of Information Systems6 of 10 evidenced, 4 to do
C5: Control and Monitoring of Service Providers and Suppliers3 of 5 evidenced, 2 to do
C5: Business Continuity Management2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
C5: Compliance2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
C5: Cryptography and Key Management2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
C5: Operations11 of 24 evidenced, 13 to do
C5: Organisation of Information Security3 of 7 evidenced, 4 to do
C5: Product Safety and Security4 of 12 evidenced, 8 to do
C5: Portability and Interoperability1 of 3 evidenced, 2 to do
C5: Dealing with Investigation Requests from Government Agencies0 of 4 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.

5.9C5-AM-01argued against and upheld
Asset Inventory

A current inventory of information and associated assets with named owners is the asset register required

5.10C5-AM-02argued against and upheld
Acceptable Use and Safe Handling of Assets Policy

Documented rules for the permissible use and handling of information and assets are the policy this criterion requires

7.14C5-AM-04argued against and upheld
Decommissioning of Hardware

Verified removal or secure overwriting of data before equipment leaves use is the erasure limb of decommissioning

5.11C5-AM-05argued against and upheld
Commitment to Permissible Use, Safe Handling and Return of Assets

Recovery of all organisational assets when an engagement ends is the evidenced return the criterion requires

5.13C5-AM-06argued against and upheld
Asset Classification and Labelling

Labelling consistent with the classification scheme so handling rules follow the label is required directly

5.12C5-AM-06argued against and upheld
Asset Classification and Labelling

Classification by confidentiality, integrity, availability and interested party requirements is the uniform scheme required

5.30C5-BCM-03argued against and upheld
Planning business continuity

Planning and implementing ICT readiness against business continuity objectives is the continuity planning required

5.30C5-BCM-04argued against and upheld
Verification, updating and testing of the business continuity

Maintaining and testing ICT readiness is the verification and testing this criterion requires

Claims that did not hold

1 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.

8.3C5-IDM-07
Access to cloud customer data

judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion. this criterion requires the cloud customer to be notified of every provider access to their unencrypted data, with cause, time, duration and scope; restricting access to information notifies nobody and is already carried by C5-PSS-09

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

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