ISO 27001:2022FedRAMP Moderate

ISO 27001:2022 covers 49.8% of FedRAMP Moderate

161 of the 323 controls in FedRAMP Moderate are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27001:2022. 162 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.

49.8%

of the target already covered

161

controls evidenced

162

genuine gaps

404

claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of FedRAMP Moderate 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.

597 candidate mappings were examined and 413 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.

MP - Media Protection6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do

PE - Physical and Environmental Protection16 of 19 evidenced, 3 to do

PS - Personnel Security8 of 10 evidenced, 2 to do

AT - Awareness and Training4 of 6 evidenced, 2 to do

AU - Audit and Accountability10 of 16 evidenced, 6 to do

MA - Maintenance6 of 10 evidenced, 4 to do

SR - Supply Chain Risk Management7 of 12 evidenced, 5 to do

CA - Assessment, Authorization, and Monitoring8 of 14 evidenced, 6 to do

SI - System and Information Integrity12 of 24 evidenced, 12 to do

SA - System and Services Acquisition10 of 21 evidenced, 11 to do

RA - Risk Assessment5 of 11 evidenced, 6 to do

CM - Configuration Management12 of 27 evidenced, 15 to do

CP - Contingency Planning10 of 23 evidenced, 13 to do

PL - Planning3 of 7 evidenced, 4 to do

AC - Access Control18 of 43 evidenced, 25 to do

IR - Incident Response7 of 17 evidenced, 10 to do

SC - System and Communications Protection11 of 29 evidenced, 18 to do

IA - Identification and Authentication8 of 27 evidenced, 19 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.

5.1AC-1argued against and upheld

Policy and Procedures

Policies for information security include the access control policy.

8.1AC-11argued against and upheld

Device Lock

End point device rules configure the device lock behaviour.

7.7AC-11argued against and upheld

Device Lock

Clear screen requirements lock unattended devices.

7.7AC-12argued against and upheld

Session Termination

Clear screen requirements end sessions left unattended.

6.7AC-17argued against and upheld

Remote Access

Remote working controls are this remote access control.

8.20AC-17(3)argued against and upheld

Managed Access Control Points

Networks security routes remote access through managed control points.

8.20AC-18argued against and upheld

Wireless Access

Networks security governs wireless network access and protection.

8.1AC-19argued against and upheld

Access Control for Mobile Devices

User end point device controls govern mobile device access.

Claims that did not hold

404 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.

8.5AC-11

Device Lock