NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar

NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 covers 46% of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar

29 of the 63 controls in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3. 34 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.

46%
of the target already covered
29
controls evidenced
34
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar your NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 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.

76 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.

Detection3 of 4 evidenced, 1 to do
Data Protection7 of 11 evidenced, 4 to do
Incident Response4 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
Identity & Access Management7 of 15 evidenced, 8 to do
Infrastructure Protection4 of 9 evidenced, 5 to do
Security Foundations3 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
Application Security1 of 8 evidenced, 7 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.

03.06.05SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP02argued against and upheld
Develop incident management plans

Incident response plan developed, distributed, reviewed and updated covering CUI compromise.

03.06.01SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP02argued against and upheld
Develop incident management plans

Incident handling spans preparation, detection, containment, eradication and recovery.

03.06.03SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP04argued against and upheld
Develop and test security incident response playbooks

Incident response capability tested at defined frequency with documented results.

03.06.03SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP07argued against and upheld
Run simulations

Periodic incident response testing is the exercise this practice asks for.

03.06.01SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP08argued against and upheld
Establish a framework for learning from incidents

Incident handling explicitly includes post-incident activity feeding improvement.

03.02.02SEC 11: How do you incorporate and validate the security properties of applications? | SEC11-BP01argued against and upheld
Train for application security

Role-based training required for personnel with security duties, including developers.

03.05.03SEC 1: How do you securely operate your workload? | SEC01-BP02argued against and upheld
Secure account root user and properties

Multi-factor authentication required for privileged account access.

03.01.06SEC 1: How do you securely operate your workload? | SEC01-BP02argued against and upheld
Secure account root user and properties

Privileged accounts restricted to designated personnel and not used for routine work.

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