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 14 controls across our corpus
Belgium CyberFundamentals Framework 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.
- Access control policy and standard
- Joiner/mover/leaver workflow records
- Role and entitlement matrix
- Quarterly access review attestations
- MFA enrolment and exception register
What closing it also buys you
The 14 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.
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 53
AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)13
ISO/IEC 27043:20155
MARS-E62
OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 202550
South Korea ISMS-P16
ISO/SAE 214342
ISO 27799:20253
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.03
CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.011
ISO 1348516
NIST Privacy Framework37
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 United States | 3.1% | 10 of 320 |
| AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) United States (AWWA) | 13.5% | 5 of 37 |
| ISO/IEC 27043:2015 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27) | 5.0% | 5 of 100 |
| MARS-E United States | 62.5% | 5 of 8 |
| OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025 International | 50.0% | 4 of 8 |
| South Korea ISMS-P South Korea | 16.0% | 4 of 25 |
| ISO/SAE 21434 International (ISO/TC 22/SC 32 with SAE International) | 2.2% | 4 of 183 |
| ISO 27799:2025 International (ISO/TC 215) | 3.1% | 4 of 130 |
| NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 United States | 3.8% | 4 of 106 |
| CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 United States | 11.4% | 4 of 35 |
| ISO 13485 International | 16.7% | 4 of 24 |
| NIST Privacy Framework United States | 37.5% | 3 of 8 |
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