NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 covers 62.9% of NIST SP 800-172
22 of the 35 controls in NIST SP 800-172 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1. 13 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.
What this leaves you to do
NIST SP 800-172 has 35 controls. Holding NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 already evidences 22 of them, so the work in front of you is 13 controls, not 35, which is 37% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. 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.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 22 controls of NIST SP 800-172 you do not have to implement again, which is $13.59 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 22 already evidenced are | 88 hours | 176 hours | 352 hours |
| and the 13 remaining are | 52 hours | 104 hours | 208 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of NIST SP 800-172 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.
77 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.
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.
Risk assessment across enterprise, mission and system levels, kept current and informing decisions.
Maintains threat actor awareness and feeds it into architecture, monitoring and response decisions.
Hunts for adversary activity that evaded controls rather than waiting for an alert.
Risk responses and determinations are recorded with rationale and an accountable owner.
The security plan records the controls selected and the dependencies they address.
Continuous monitoring re-tests effectiveness on schedule and on new risk information.
Assesses whether controls actually operate rather than accepting a claim they exist.
Establishes the processes that identify and address supply chain risk for the system.
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