TheArtOfService
NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1Azure Security Benchmark

NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 covers 34.1% of Azure Security Benchmark

29 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1. 56 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.

34.1%
of the target already covered
29
controls evidenced
56
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of Azure Security Benchmark your NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 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.

100 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.

Asset Management4 of 5 evidenced, 1 to do
DevOps Security5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Posture and Vulnerability Management5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Endpoint Security2 of 3 evidenced, 1 to do
Governance and Strategy4 of 10 evidenced, 6 to do
Privileged Access3 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
Incident Response2 of 7 evidenced, 5 to do
Backup and Recovery1 of 4 evidenced, 3 to do
Logging and Threat Detection1 of 7 evidenced, 6 to do
Data Protection1 of 8 evidenced, 7 to do
Identity Management1 of 9 evidenced, 8 to do
Network Security0 of 10 evidenced, 10 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.

RA-9ASB v3 AM-1argued against and upheld
Track asset inventory and their risks

Criticality analysis attaches risk to the assets in the inventory.

CM-8ASB v3 AM-1argued against and upheld
Track asset inventory and their risks

Component inventory carrying supplier, origin and support status.

CM-10ASB v3 AM-2argued against and upheld
Use only approved services

Software usage restrictions define which services and sources are permitted.

CM-7ASB v3 AM-2argued against and upheld
Use only approved services

Least functionality removes services the organization does not need.

AC-20ASB v3 AM-2argued against and upheld
Use only approved services

Sets and verifies the terms under which external services may be used.

SR-12ASB v3 AM-3argued against and upheld
Ensure security of asset lifecycle management

Disposal at end of life so components leave organizational control safely.

SA-22ASB v3 AM-3argued against and upheld
Ensure security of asset lifecycle management

Manages components once the supplier no longer supports them.

SA-3ASB v3 AM-3argued against and upheld
Ensure security of asset lifecycle management

Security activities at defined points across the component life cycle.

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