TheArtOfService
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 51.8% of Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1

102 of the 197 controls in Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 95 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.

51.8%
of the target already covered
102
controls evidenced
95
genuine gaps
1
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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.

203 candidate mappings were examined and 11 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. This pair was additionally re-checked after CSA CCM v4.0.1 was rebuilt from the CAIQ v4.0.1 source on 2026-08-19: its mappings were originally judged when CCM carried no requirement text, a sample of 70 across the 21 CCM pairs found about 80 percent holding cleanly, and the two identified errors were corrected before release.

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.

GRC - Governance, Risk & Compliance6 of 8 evidenced, 2 to do
BCR - Business Continuity Management & Operational Resilience8 of 11 evidenced, 3 to do
STA - Supply Chain Management, Transparency & Accountability10 of 14 evidenced, 4 to do
AIS - Application & Interface Security5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
LOG - Logging & Monitoring9 of 13 evidenced, 4 to do
DCS - Datacenter Security10 of 15 evidenced, 5 to do
CCC - Change Control & Configuration Management6 of 9 evidenced, 3 to do
IVS - Infrastructure & Virtualization Security6 of 9 evidenced, 3 to do
HRS - Human Resources Security7 of 13 evidenced, 6 to do
IAM - Identity & Access Management8 of 16 evidenced, 8 to do
SEF - Security Incident Management, E-Discovery & Cloud Forensics4 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
DSP - Data Security & Privacy Lifecycle Management9 of 19 evidenced, 10 to do
UEM - Universal Endpoint Management6 of 14 evidenced, 8 to do
TVM - Threat & Vulnerability Management4 of 10 evidenced, 6 to do
A&A - Audit & Assurance2 of 6 evidenced, 4 to do
IPY - Interoperability & Portability1 of 4 evidenced, 3 to do
CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management1 of 21 evidenced, 20 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-GV.OC-03CCM-A&A-04argued against and upheld
Requirements Compliance

GV.OC-03 requires legal, regulatory and contractual requirements be understood and managed.

NIST-CSF-ID.RA-06CCM-A&A-06argued against and upheld
Remediation

ID.RA-06 requires responses be chosen, prioritized, planned, tracked and communicated.

NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01CCM-AIS-02argued against and upheld
Application Security Baseline Requirements

PR.PS-01 requires configuration management practices be established and applied to platforms.

NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06CCM-AIS-04argued against and upheld
Secure Application Design and Development

PR.PS-06 requires secure software development practices across the development life cycle.

NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06CCM-AIS-05argued against and upheld
Automated Application Security Testing

PR.PS-06 secure development practices include security testing of the application.

NIST-CSF-PR.PS-06CCM-AIS-06argued against and upheld
Automated Secure Application Deployment

PR.PS-06 secure development practices extend to how software is built and deployed.

NIST-CSF-ID.RA-06CCM-AIS-07argued against and upheld
Application Vulnerability Remediation

ID.RA-06 requires the remediation response be planned and tracked to completion.

NIST-CSF-ID.RA-01CCM-AIS-07argued against and upheld
Application Vulnerability Remediation

ID.RA-01 requires vulnerabilities in assets be identified, validated and recorded.

Claims that did not hold

1 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.

NIST-CSF-GV.SC-07CCM-STA-10
Supply Chain Agreement Review

re-pointed 2026-08-19: judged when CCM carried no requirement text, so it landed on the control whose title resembled the requirement rather than the control that carries it

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

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