Named by 6 frameworks

No periodic review

6 of the 723 frameworks in our corpus warn about this same failure, across 6 separate controls. That convergence is the measurement: it is not one standard's opinion.

Data measured , page built 22 September 2026 at 16:18 UTC.

6 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 6 controls across our corpus

COBIT 2019 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.

What closing it also buys you

The 28 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.

FedRAMP High10
FedRAMP Moderate12
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 511
NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH9
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE10
PCI DSS 4.010
CIS Controls v816
CMMC 2.019
ISO 27701:201913
SOC 226
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 LOW9
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.014

Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred percent. Exact figures below.

Also progressesCovered Controls reached
FedRAMP High
United States
10.0%41 of 410
FedRAMP Moderate
United States
12.7%41 of 323
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5
United States
11.2%36 of 320
NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH
United States
9.1%29 of 317
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE
United States
10.5%29 of 275
PCI DSS 4.0
International
10.0%25 of 249
CIS Controls v8
International
16.3%25 of 153
CMMC 2.0
United States
19.1%21 of 110
ISO 27701:2019
International
13.1%19 of 145
SOC 2
United States
26.2%16 of 61
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 LOW
United States
9.2%16 of 173
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
United States
14.2%15 of 106

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.

Where this goes next

  1. The other failures the whole industry independently agrees on:The full catalogue →
  2. Everything else COBIT 2019 asks for, and what it overlaps with:COBIT 2019 in full →
  3. Which companies are disclosing the events this failure produces:Who disclosed it →
  4. What changed in those disclosures this week:What changed →
  5. And today's story, which is usually one of these arriving in public:Today's edition →

All failure modes ยท The index