NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3CMMC 2.0

NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 covers 94.5% of CMMC 2.0

104 of the 110 controls in CMMC 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3. 6 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.

94.5%
of the target already covered
104
controls evidenced
6
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of CMMC 2.0 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.

119 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.

Access Control22 of 22 evidenced
Audit and Accountability9 of 9 evidenced
Configuration Management9 of 9 evidenced
Media Protection9 of 9 evidenced
System and Information Integrity7 of 7 evidenced
Physical Protection6 of 6 evidenced
Security Assessment4 of 4 evidenced
Awareness and Training3 of 3 evidenced
Incident Response3 of 3 evidenced
Risk Assessment3 of 3 evidenced
Personnel Security2 of 2 evidenced
Maintenance5 of 6 evidenced, 1 to do
Identification and Authentication9 of 11 evidenced, 2 to do
System and Communications Protection13 of 16 evidenced, 3 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.

03.01.02AC.L2-3.1.1argued against and upheld
Authorized Access Control

Access enforcement records show approved authorizations enforced for logical access to CUI.

03.01.01AC.L2-3.1.1argued against and upheld
Authorized Access Control

Account management establishes and authorizes the accounts that limit system access to authorized users.

03.01.10AC.L2-3.1.10argued against and upheld
Session Lock

Device lock after inactivity with re authentication to unlock is the session lock evidence.

03.01.11AC.L2-3.1.11argued against and upheld
Session Termination

Automatic session termination after defined conditions is the identical requirement.

03.01.12AC.L2-3.1.12argued against and upheld
Control Remote Access

Remote access usage restrictions, configuration requirements and authorization records satisfy this.

03.13.08AC.L2-3.1.13argued against and upheld
Remote Access Confidentiality

Cryptographic mechanisms protecting CUI in transmission cover remote access session confidentiality.

03.01.12AC.L2-3.1.14argued against and upheld
Remote Access Routing

Routing remote access through managed access control points is stated in the source requirement.

03.01.12AC.L2-3.1.15argued against and upheld
Privileged Remote Access

Permitting only approved remote execution of privileged commands is stated in the source requirement.

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