ISO 27002:2022NIS2 Directive

ISO 27002:2022 covers 42.9% of NIS2 Directive

12 of the 28 controls in NIS2 Directive are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27002:2022. 16 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
12
controls evidenced
16
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of NIS2 Directive 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.

62 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, 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.

NIS2 Chapter IV: Cybersecurity Risk-Management Measures (Article 21)11 of 13 evidenced, 2 to do
NIS2 Chapter IV: Governance (Article 20)1 of 2 evidenced, 1 to do
NIS2 Chapter IV: Incident Reporting (Article 23)0 of 6 evidenced, 6 to do
NIS2 Chapter IV: Supply Chain Assessment, Certification and Standardisation (Articles 22, 24, 25)0 of 1 evidenced, 1 to do
NIS2 Chapter V: Jurisdiction and Registration0 of 3 evidenced, 3 to do
NIS2 Chapter VI: Information Sharing0 of 1 evidenced, 1 to do
NIS2 Chapter I: General Provisions0 of 1 evidenced, 1 to do
NIS2 Chapter VII: Supervision and Enforcement0 of 1 evidenced, 1 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.

6.3Art.20.2argued against and upheld
Train the management body, and offer equivalent training to staff on a regular basis

Requires appropriate, current security training by role for personnel including management.

5.1Art.21.2.aargued against and upheld
Policies on risk analysis and on information system security

Requires a top level and topic specific policy set, approved, published and reviewed.

5.27Art.21.2.bargued against and upheld
Incident handling

Feeds lessons from incidents back into stronger controls.

5.25Art.21.2.bargued against and upheld
Incident handling

Triages security events and decides which become incidents.

5.24Art.21.2.bargued against and upheld
Incident handling

Defines incident roles, processes and readiness before an incident occurs.

5.26Art.21.2.bargued against and upheld
Incident handling

Response executed against the documented incident procedures.

5.30Art.21.2.cargued against and upheld
Business continuity, backup management, disaster recovery and crisis management

ICT readiness planned, implemented, maintained and tested against continuity objectives.

5.29Art.21.2.cargued against and upheld
Business continuity, backup management, disaster recovery and crisis management

Requires information security to be held at the right level during disruption.

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