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 70 controls across our corpus
Australian Government Information Security Manual 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.
- Patch management records and SLAs
- Privileged administration procedures
- Backup and restoration test records
- Evidence demonstrating: Patches, updates or other vendor mitigations for vulnerabilities in operating sy
- Evidence demonstrating: A vulnerability scanner is used at least fortnightly to identify missing patches
- Evidence demonstrating: Patches, updates or other vendor mitigations for vulnerabilities in office produ
What closing it also buys you
The 69 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.
NERC CIP87
ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents13
IEC 624434
APRA CPS 23411
FFIEC IT Examination Handbook5
BSI IT-Grundschutz5
API 116412
EASA Part-IS8
NIST SP 800-171A9
NIST SP 800-171A Rev 38
ISO 22320:20188
ISO 270196
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| NERC CIP North America | 87.5% | 7 of 8 |
| ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents Australia | 13.5% | 5 of 37 |
| IEC 62443 International | 4.9% | 4 of 81 |
| APRA CPS 234 Australia | 11.4% | 4 of 35 |
| FFIEC IT Examination Handbook United States | 5.1% | 4 of 78 |
| BSI IT-Grundschutz Germany | 5.5% | 3 of 55 |
| API 1164 United States | 12.5% | 3 of 24 |
| EASA Part-IS European Union | 8.8% | 3 of 34 |
| NIST SP 800-171A United States | 9.4% | 3 of 32 |
| NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 United States (NIST) | 8.6% | 3 of 35 |
| ISO 22320:2018 International | 8.1% | 3 of 37 |
| ISO 27019 International | 6.5% | 3 of 46 |
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