NIST SP 800-172SOC 2

NIST SP 800-172 covers 18% of SOC 2

11 of the 61 controls in SOC 2 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-172. 50 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.

18%
of the target already covered
11
controls evidenced
50
genuine gaps
4
claims rejected in review

What this leaves you to do

SOC 2 has 61 controls. Holding NIST SP 800-172 already evidences 11 of them, so the work in front of you is 50 controls, not 61, which is 82% of the standard rather than all of it.

That is the whole claim. We do not know your hourly rate, how long a control takes you, or how many people you have, so there is no figure here in dollars or weeks. 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.

This number is directional. It says how much of SOC 2 your NIST SP 800-172 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.

41 candidate mappings were examined and 4 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.

C - Confidentiality1 of 2 evidenced, 1 to do
CC - Common Criteria (Security)10 of 33 evidenced, 23 to do
A - Availability0 of 3 evidenced, 3 to do
P - Privacy0 of 18 evidenced, 18 to do
PI - Processing Integrity0 of 5 evidenced, 5 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.

3.14.5eSOC2-C1.2argued against and upheld
Confidential information is disposed of securely

Removing CUI no longer needed from persistent storage is disposal of confidential information.

3.12.1eSOC2-CC4.1argued against and upheld
COSO principle 16: Selects and develops ongoing and separate evaluations

Annual independent penetration testing is a separate evaluation of whether controls function.

3.11.5eSOC2-CC4.1argued against and upheld
COSO principle 16: Selects and develops ongoing and separate evaluations

Annual assessment of security solution effectiveness is a separate evaluation of control functioning.

3.1.2eSOC2-CC6.1argued against and upheld
Implements logical access security software, infrastructure and architectures over protected information assets

Restricting access to organization provisioned resources is a logical access architecture over protected assets.

3.5.1eSOC2-CC6.6argued against and upheld
Measures against threats outside system boundaries are implemented

Bidirectional cryptographic authentication before network connection blocks unauthorized external systems at the boundary.

3.1.3eSOC2-CC6.6argued against and upheld
Measures against threats outside system boundaries are implemented

Secure information transfer solutions control flows crossing the boundary between connected systems.

3.1.3eSOC2-CC6.7argued against and upheld
Transmission of data is restricted to authorized users

Secure transfer solutions restrict and protect information moving between security domains.

3.14.1eSOC2-CC6.8argued against and upheld
Controls to prevent or detect unauthorized or malicious software

Root of trust and signature verification of software detects unauthorized or altered code.

Claims that did not hold

4 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.

3.13.2eSOC2-CC6.1
Implements logical access security software, infrastructure and architectures over protected information assets

control identity corrected 2026-08-19: issued 3.13.2e is introducing unpredictability into operations; these mappings are least privilege and secure engineering, a subject that appears nowhere in the issued 800-172

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

3.13.1eSOC2-CC6.1
Implements logical access security software, infrastructure and architectures over protected information assets

control identity corrected 2026-08-19: issued 3.13.1e is component diversity to limit malicious code propagation; these mappings are boundary protection and segmentation, judged against 3.1.3e's content which this control was wrongly carrying

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

3.5.3eSOC2-CC6.1
Implements logical access security software, infrastructure and architectures over protected information assets

corrected 2026-08-19: judged from a title claiming multifactor authentication, while the control carried 3.5.2e password-management text. Issued 800-172 3.5.3e is comply-to-connect: prohibit connection of unknown or unverified components. Authentication evidence does not satisfy it.

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

3.13.1eSOC2-CC6.6
Measures against threats outside system boundaries are implemented

control identity corrected 2026-08-19: issued 3.13.1e is component diversity to limit malicious code propagation; these mappings are boundary protection and segmentation, judged against 3.1.3e's content which this control was wrongly carrying

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