UK Cyber EssentialsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

UK Cyber Essentials covers 7.5% of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

8 of the 106 controls in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for UK Cyber Essentials. 98 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.

7.5%
of the target already covered
8
controls evidenced
98
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.

32 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.

PR - Protect7 of 22 evidenced, 15 to do
DE - Detect1 of 11 evidenced, 10 to do
GV - Govern0 of 28 evidenced, 28 to do
Govern0 of 3 evidenced, 3 to do
ID - Identify0 of 21 evidenced, 21 to do
RC - Recover0 of 8 evidenced, 8 to do
RS - Respond0 of 13 evidenced, 13 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.

CE-MP.3NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09argued against and upheld
Computing hardware and software are monitored to find potentially adverse events

On-access scanning continuously inspects files and web content for malicious activity.

CE-MP.1NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09argued against and upheld
Computing hardware and software are monitored to find potentially adverse events

Anti-malware on every device is the mechanism that monitors software for adverse events.

CE-AC.3NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01argued against and upheld
Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed

Both require identities removed or disabled once no longer required.

CE-AC.1NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01argued against and upheld
Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed

Both require identities created only through a documented approval process.

CE-SC.5NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01argued against and upheld
Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed

Both require the credentials bound to those identities to meet strength requirements.

CE-AC.7NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03argued against and upheld
Users, services, and hardware are authenticated

Both strengthen authentication of privileged users through multi-factor authentication.

CE-AC.2NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03argued against and upheld
Users, services, and hardware are authenticated

Both require users authenticated against a unique account before access.

CE-SC.6NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03argued against and upheld
Users, services, and hardware are authenticated

Both require MFA on cloud accounts where the provider supports it.

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