TheArtOfService
ISO 27002:2022Azure Security Benchmark

ISO 27002:2022 covers 69.4% of Azure Security Benchmark

59 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27002:2022. 26 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.

69.4%
of the target already covered
59
controls evidenced
26
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of Azure Security Benchmark your ISO 27002:2022 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.

127 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
Incident Response6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
Identity Management7 of 9 evidenced, 2 to do
Backup and Recovery3 of 4 evidenced, 1 to do
DevOps Security5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Logging and Threat Detection5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Posture and Vulnerability Management5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Governance and Strategy7 of 10 evidenced, 3 to do
Data Protection5 of 8 evidenced, 3 to do
Privileged Access5 of 8 evidenced, 3 to do
Asset Management3 of 5 evidenced, 2 to do
Network Security5 of 10 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.

5.9ASB v3 AM-1argued against and upheld
Track asset inventory and their risks

Inventory of information and associated assets, with owners recorded.

5.9ASB v3 AM-3argued against and upheld
Ensure security of asset lifecycle management

Asset register maintained with ownership across the asset lifecycle.

8.19ASB v3 AM-5argued against and upheld
Use only approved applications in virtual machine

Only authorised software may be installed and executed on operational systems.

8.13ASB v3 BR-1argued against and upheld
Ensure regular automated backups

Backup copies taken and retained per an agreed backup policy.

8.13ASB v3 BR-3argued against and upheld
Monitor backups

Backups are monitored to confirm they run as specified.

8.13ASB v3 BR-4argued against and upheld
Regularly test backup

Restoration is tested regularly to confirm backups are usable.

5.12ASB v3 DP-1argued against and upheld
Discover, classify, and label sensitive data

Classification of information according to sensitivity is the same requirement.

5.13ASB v3 DP-1argued against and upheld
Discover, classify, and label sensitive data

Labelling of information follows the classification scheme.

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