3 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 15 controls across our corpus
PCI PIN Security 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.
- network diagram
- encryption inventory
- key management procedure
- secure config standards
What closing it also buys you
The 16 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.
ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents24
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 51
AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)13
PCI P2PE1
CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.014
ISO/IEC 27043:20155
NIST SP 800-124 Revision 214
ISO/SAE 214342
PCI SSF3
NIST SP 800-171A Rev 333
PCI PIN Security1
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents Australia | 24.3% | 9 of 37 |
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 United States | 1.9% | 6 of 320 |
| AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) United States (AWWA) | 13.5% | 5 of 37 |
| PCI P2PE Global (PCI Security Standards Council; P2PE solution providers, component providers, application vendors and merchants operating merchant-managed solutions) | 1.2% | 5 of 407 |
| CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 United States | 14.3% | 5 of 35 |
| ISO/IEC 27043:2015 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27) | 5.0% | 5 of 100 |
| NIST SP 800-124 Revision 2 United States | 14.7% | 5 of 34 |
| FFIEC IT Examination Handbook United States (FRB, FDIC, NCUA, OCC and state banking supervisors) | 0.9% | 5 of 538 |
| ISO/SAE 21434 International (ISO/TC 22/SC 32 with SAE International) | 2.7% | 5 of 183 |
| PCI SSF Global (PCI Security Standards Council; payment software vendors seeking validation and listing) | 3.2% | 5 of 156 |
| NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 United States (NIST) | 33.3% | 5 of 15 |
| PCI PIN Security Global (PCI Security Standards Council; acquirers and their agents processing PINs, key-injection facilities and certification authorities) | 1.3% | 5 of 399 |
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