NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5DORA

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 covers 53.8% of DORA

14 of the 26 controls in DORA are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5. 12 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.

53.8%
of the target already covered
14
controls evidenced
12
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of DORA your NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 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.

78 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, 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.

DORA Chapter II: ICT Risk Management8 of 11 evidenced, 3 to do
DORA Chapters VI-VII: Information Sharing, Penalties and Data Protection2 of 3 evidenced, 1 to do
DORA Chapter IV: Digital Operational Resilience Testing2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
DORA Chapter III: ICT-Related Incident Management1 of 4 evidenced, 3 to do
DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management1 of 4 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.

NIST800-SI-4DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

Monitoring for attacks and unusual activity and alerting personnel on indications is the detection duty.

NIST800-AU-6DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

Reviewing and analysing audit records for indications of inappropriate activity is a detection layer.

NIST800-CA-7DORA-Art.10argued against and upheld
Detection

Continuous monitoring with defined metrics and response actions is the ongoing detection process.

NIST800-CP-10DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

Providing for recovery and reconstitution to a known state after disruption is the resume and recover duty.

NIST800-CP-4DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

Testing the contingency plan and reviewing results is the regular testing duty.

NIST800-CP-2DORA-Art.11argued against and upheld
Response and recovery

A contingency plan identifying essential functions, recovery objectives and restoration priorities is the recovery plan.

NIST800-CP-6DORA-Art.12argued against and upheld
Backup policies and procedures, restoration and recovery

An alternate storage site with agreements to store and retrieve backups is the segregation requirement.

NIST800-CP-9DORA-Art.12argued against and upheld
Backup policies and procedures, restoration and recovery

Backups of user, system and documentation information with confidentiality and integrity protection is the backup duty.

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