UK Cyber Essentials covers 40.5% of ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents
15 of the 37 controls in ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents are already satisfied by evidence you collected for UK Cyber Essentials. 22 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.
What this leaves you to do
ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents has 37 controls. Holding UK Cyber Essentials already evidences 15 of them, so the work in front of you is 22 controls, not 37, which is 59% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. 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.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 15 controls of ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents you do not have to implement again, which is $19.93 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 15 already evidenced are | 60 hours | 120 hours | 240 hours |
| and the 22 remaining are | 88 hours | 176 hours | 352 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents your UK Cyber Essentials 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.
38 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.
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.
Both require only approved applications, signed or hash listed, to be able to execute.
Both require automatic updating so applications run at the current vendor version.
Both require unnecessary software and features disabled or removed on user devices.
Both inspect web content on access and block connections to malicious sites.
Both require unneeded services and software removed from servers in scope.
Both require unneeded software, services and accounts removed to harden the operating system.
Both require anti-malware software using signature or heuristic detection on devices.
Both require auto-run and auto-play on removable media disabled.
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