NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0Azure Security Benchmark

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 44.7% of Azure Security Benchmark

38 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 47 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.

44.7%
of the target already covered
38
controls evidenced
47
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

What this leaves you to do

Azure Security Benchmark has 85 controls. Holding NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 already evidences 38 of them, so the work in front of you is 47 controls, not 85, which is 55% of the standard rather than all of it.

That is the whole claim. We do not know your hourly rate, how long a control takes you, or how many people you have, so there is no figure here in dollars or weeks. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.

This number is directional. It says how much of Azure Security Benchmark your NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.

97 candidate mappings were examined and 2 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.

Incident Response6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
Asset Management4 of 5 evidenced, 1 to do
Backup and Recovery3 of 4 evidenced, 1 to do
Logging and Threat Detection5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Posture and Vulnerability Management4 of 7 evidenced, 3 to do
Network Security5 of 10 evidenced, 5 to do
Data Protection3 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
Privileged Access3 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
Endpoint Security1 of 3 evidenced, 2 to do
Identity Management2 of 9 evidenced, 7 to do
DevOps Security1 of 7 evidenced, 6 to do
Governance and Strategy1 of 10 evidenced, 9 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.

NIST-CSF-ID.AM-01ASB v3 AM-1argued against and upheld
Track asset inventory and their risks

Maintained hardware inventories are half the cloud asset inventory.

NIST-CSF-ID.AM-02ASB v3 AM-1argued against and upheld
Track asset inventory and their risks

Maintained software, service and system inventories are the other half.

NIST-CSF-ID.AM-08ASB v3 AM-3argued against and upheld
Ensure security of asset lifecycle management

Managing systems, hardware and software through their life cycles is asset life cycle security.

NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05ASB v3 AM-4argued against and upheld
Limit access to asset management

Defined and managed entitlements restrict who can alter asset management.

NIST-CSF-PR.PS-05ASB v3 AM-5argued against and upheld
Use only approved applications in virtual machine

Preventing execution of unauthorised software is the allow list requirement.

NIST-CSF-PR.DS-11ASB v3 BR-1argued against and upheld
Ensure regular automated backups

Backups created and maintained on a schedule is the same requirement.

NIST-CSF-PR.DS-11ASB v3 BR-2argued against and upheld
Protect backup and recovery data

Backups protected is named directly in the outcome.

NIST-CSF-PR.DS-11ASB v3 BR-4argued against and upheld
Regularly test backup

Backups tested is named directly in the outcome.

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