5 standards bodies wrote this down separately. None of them consulted the others. That is not a preference you can argue with, it is what happens.From 60 controls across our corpus
FedRAMP High Evidence & Implementation Kit
This is the complete documentation set: an adopt-ready artifact for every control in policy and procedure text you edit rather than draft, and the evidence checklist an auditor asks for against each.
See what is in it, $249
The same set every buyer of this kit receives. Nothing here is produced on request.
Who warns about it
Every framework below independently names this failure. They were written by different
bodies, in different jurisdictions, for different industries, and they agree.
What an auditor asks for
The artefacts named on the controls that warn about this failure. This is what closes
it, and what you will be asked to produce when somebody checks.
- Role-based access matrix mapped to job functions and data classifications
- Joiner mover leaver workflow evidence integrated with HR
- Quarterly privileged access review attestations
- Account provisioning and deprovisioning workflow tickets with manager approvals
- System access request forms with business justification
- Access control policy approved by the information security officer
What closing it also buys you
The 13 controls that warn about this failure map onto controls in other
frameworks. Close them here and this much of each of those is closed too. It is the same work
counted once, which is usually the difference between a programme that finishes and one that
does not.
PCI DSS 4.018
CIS Controls v815
ISO 27002:202218
ISO 27001:202219
Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.19
C5 (Germany)14
Azure Security Benchmark17
AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar23
SOC 223
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 54
NIST SP 800-171 Rev 312
UK Cyber Essentials33
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| PCI DSS 4.0 International | 18.1% | 45 of 249 |
| CIS Controls v8 International | 15.0% | 23 of 153 |
| ISO 27002:2022 International | 18.3% | 19 of 104 |
| ISO 27001:2022 International | 19.0% | 19 of 100 |
| Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 International | 9.1% | 18 of 197 |
| C5 (Germany) Germany | 14.0% | 17 of 121 |
| Azure Security Benchmark International | 17.6% | 15 of 85 |
| AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar International | 23.8% | 15 of 63 |
| SOC 2 United States | 23.0% | 14 of 61 |
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 United States | 4.1% | 13 of 320 |
| NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 United States | 12.4% | 12 of 97 |
| UK Cyber Essentials United Kingdom | 33.3% | 12 of 36 |
Read as: closing this failure reaches that share of the named
framework's control library through cross-framework mappings held in our corpus. It is not a
claim of compliance with that framework, it is a measure of how much of it you have already
touched.
Where this comes from
Harvested from the control library itself. Every control in our corpus carries the evidence an
auditor expects and the ways implementations commonly fail, recorded when that control was
verified against its source document. This page is those two fields, for one failure, across
every framework that names it.
The overlap is computed by traversing
332,959 cross-framework control mappings out from the specific controls that
warn about this failure, not from the frameworks they sit in. Those mappings were built control
by control against source documents.
Nothing here is inferred, predicted or scored. The number at the top
is a count of frameworks.
All failure modes ยท
The index