4 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 7 controls across our corpus
CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0 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.
- Scan coverage report
- Vulnerability backlog with SLAs
- Remediation records
- Verification scan results
- Policy mandating code review for all projects
- Coverage metrics across the portfolio
What closing it also buys you
The 27 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.
ISO 15189:20229
BIMCO Cyber Security23
NIST SP 800-171A Rev 317
ACSC Essential Eight25
ISO 41001:20183
ISO 39001:20123
ISO 22313:20203
ISO 20400:201712
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.04
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 52
ISO/IEC 27011:20249
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| ISO 15189:2022 International (ISO) | 9.1% | 7 of 77 |
| BIMCO Cyber Security International | 23.1% | 6 of 26 |
| NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 United States (NIST) | 17.1% | 6 of 35 |
| ACSC Essential Eight Australia | 25.0% | 6 of 24 |
| ISO 41001:2018 International (ISO) | 3.0% | 5 of 168 |
| ISO 39001:2012 International | 3.0% | 5 of 169 |
| ISO 22313:2020 International (ISO) | 3.0% | 5 of 167 |
| ISO 20400:2017 International | 12.5% | 5 of 40 |
| NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 United States | 4.7% | 5 of 106 |
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 United States | 2.6% | 5 of 192 |
| Australian Information Security Manual Australia | 0.5% | 5 of 1081 |
| ISO/IEC 27011:2024 International | 9.1% | 4 of 44 |
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