ISO 27002:2022PCI DSS 4.0

ISO 27002:2022 covers 48.6% of PCI DSS 4.0

121 of the 249 controls in PCI DSS 4.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27002:2022. 128 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.

48.6%

of the target already covered

121

controls evidenced

128

genuine gaps

227

claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of PCI DSS 4.0 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.

529 candidate mappings were examined and 286 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.

Req 7: Restrict Access by Need to Know9 of 12 evidenced, 3 to do

Req 4: Protect Cardholder Data in Transit4 of 6 evidenced, 2 to do

Req 1: Network Security Controls12 of 19 evidenced, 7 to do

Req 6: Secure Systems and Software12 of 19 evidenced, 7 to do

Req 12: Information Security Policies21 of 37 evidenced, 16 to do

Req 2: Secure Configurations6 of 11 evidenced, 5 to do

Req 9: Restrict Physical Access14 of 26 evidenced, 12 to do

Req 10: Logging and Monitoring13 of 27 evidenced, 14 to do

Req 8: Identify and Authenticate Users11 of 29 evidenced, 18 to do

Req 3: Protect Stored Account Data9 of 29 evidenced, 20 to do

Req 5: Anti-Malware4 of 13 evidenced, 9 to do

Req 11: Test Security Regularly6 of 21 evidenced, 15 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.

5.11.1.1argued against and upheld

NSC policies and procedures documented

Requires documented, approved, published and reviewed policies covering network security.

5.21.1.2argued against and upheld

Roles and responsibilities for Requirement 1

Security roles and responsibilities must be defined, allocated and communicated.

8.91.2.1argued against and upheld

NSC configuration standards defined

Secure configuration standards must be defined, documented and applied to network components.

8.321.2.2argued against and upheld

Changes to NSC reviewed and approved

Changes to network configurations must go through formal change management.

8.211.2.5argued against and upheld

Services, protocols, ports inventoried and justified

Security mechanisms and requirements of network services must be identified and approved.

8.211.2.6argued against and upheld

Security features for insecure services defined

Security mechanisms must be defined for network services that are otherwise insecure.

8.221.3.1argued against and upheld

Inbound traffic to CDE restricted

Network segregation must restrict traffic entering the protected segment.

8.201.3.1argued against and upheld

Inbound traffic to CDE restricted

Networks must be controlled so only necessary inbound traffic is permitted.

Claims that did not hold

227 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.

5.371.1.1

NSC policies and procedures documented