PCI DSS 4.0Azure Security Benchmark

PCI DSS 4.0 covers 60% of Azure Security Benchmark

51 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for PCI DSS 4.0. 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.

60%
of the target already covered
51
controls evidenced
34
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of Azure Security Benchmark your PCI DSS 4.0 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.

89 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.

Endpoint Security3 of 3 evidenced
Data Protection7 of 8 evidenced, 1 to do
Logging and Threat Detection6 of 7 evidenced, 1 to do
DevOps Security5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Posture and Vulnerability Management5 of 7 evidenced, 2 to do
Privileged Access5 of 8 evidenced, 3 to do
Governance and Strategy6 of 10 evidenced, 4 to do
Network Security5 of 10 evidenced, 5 to do
Identity Management4 of 9 evidenced, 5 to do
Incident Response3 of 7 evidenced, 4 to do
Asset Management2 of 5 evidenced, 3 to do
Backup and Recovery0 of 4 evidenced, 4 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.

12.5.1ASB v3 AM-1argued against and upheld
Track asset inventory and their risks

An inventory of all in-scope system components with function and description is maintained and kept current.

2.2.4ASB v3 AM-2argued against and upheld
Use only approved services

Only necessary services, protocols and functions are enabled on system components.

1.2.5ASB v3 AM-2argued against and upheld
Use only approved services

All allowed services, protocols and ports are inventoried with documented business justification.

12.5.2ASB v3 DP-1argued against and upheld
Discover, classify, and label sensitive data

Scope confirmation must identify every location where account data is stored, processed or transmitted.

10.4.1ASB v3 DP-2argued against and upheld
Monitor anomalies and threats targeting sensitive data

Daily review of logs from critical components detects anomalous access to sensitive data.

10.2.1.1ASB v3 DP-2argued against and upheld
Monitor anomalies and threats targeting sensitive data

All individual user access to cardholder data is logged, giving the record anomaly detection reads.

4.2.1ASB v3 DP-3argued against and upheld
Encrypt sensitive data in transit

Strong cryptography and secure protocols are required for sensitive data in transit over open networks.

3.5.1ASB v3 DP-4argued against and upheld
Enable data at rest encryption by default

Stored account data must be rendered unreadable wherever it is held, which is encryption at rest.

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