ISO 27002:2022NIST SP 800-218

ISO 27002:2022 covers 52.4% of NIST SP 800-218

22 of the 42 controls in NIST SP 800-218 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27002:2022. 20 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.

52.4%
of the target already covered
22
controls evidenced
20
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of NIST SP 800-218 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.

53 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.

Produce Well Secured Software7 of 8 evidenced, 1 to do
Respond to Vulnerabilities2 of 3 evidenced, 1 to do
Prepare the Organization5 of 8 evidenced, 3 to do
NIST SP 800-218: Access Control3 of 5 evidenced, 2 to do
Protect the Software2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
NIST SP 800-218: Cryptography2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
NIST SP 800-218: Information Security Policies1 of 5 evidenced, 4 to do
NIST SP 800-218: Asset Management0 of 5 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.

8.26SP800-218-PO.1.1argued against and upheld
Define Security Requirements for Software Development

Security requirements for applications identified and specified before development.

8.30SP800-218-PO.1.3argued against and upheld
Communicate Requirements to Third-Party Providers

Outsourced development requires security requirements be communicated and contracted.

5.2SP800-218-PO.2.1argued against and upheld
Roles and Responsibilities for Secure Development

Security roles and responsibilities defined and allocated, including for development.

6.3SP800-218-PO.2.2argued against and upheld
Training and Skills Maintenance

Role appropriate security training provided and completion tracked.

8.29SP800-218-PO.4.1argued against and upheld
Criteria for Software Security

Acceptance criteria for security testing defined before release.

8.31SP800-218-PO.5.1argued against and upheld
Secure Development Environment Implementation

Development environments separated and secured from production.

8.4SP800-218-PS.1.1argued against and upheld
Protect All Forms of Code from Unauthorized Modification

Access to source code and build scripts restricted to authorised contributors.

5.21SP800-218-PS.3.2argued against and upheld
Software Bill of Materials

ICT supply chain security requires knowing and recording software components.

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