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 34 controls across our corpus
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.
- Approved governance policy with documented scope and accountabilities
- Board or steering committee minutes evidencing oversight
- Roles and responsibilities matrix (RACI)
- ISO management system documentation
- External certification reports and surveillance audit findings
- Nonconformity register with closure evidence
What closing it also buys you
The 34 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.
Switzerland New Federal Act on Data Protection (nFADP/nDSG, 2023)21
SSAE 183
ISO/IEC 23894:20238
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.09
GDPR22
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 52
Austria Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz, DSG, amended 2018)57
ISO/IEC 27557:202210
SASB Standards11
Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8)15
SOC for Cybersecurity31
SOC 211
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| Switzerland New Federal Act on Data Protection (nFADP/nDSG, 2023) Switzerland | 21.4% | 12 of 56 |
| SSAE 18 United States (AICPA attestation standards; every CPA attestation engagement, including SOC 1, SOC 2 and SOC 3) | 3.6% | 11 of 308 |
| ISO/IEC 23894:2023 International | 8.3% | 10 of 121 |
| NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 United States | 9.4% | 10 of 106 |
| GDPR European Union | 22.5% | 9 of 40 |
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 United States | 2.8% | 9 of 320 |
| Austria Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz, DSG, amended 2018) Austria | 57.1% | 8 of 14 |
| ISO/IEC 27557:2022 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27) | 10.4% | 8 of 77 |
| SASB Standards International | 11.6% | 8 of 69 |
| Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8) Singapore (GovTech) | 15.9% | 7 of 44 |
| SOC for Cybersecurity United States (AICPA) | 31.8% | 7 of 22 |
| SOC 2 United States | 11.5% | 7 of 61 |
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