Does Azure Security Benchmark cover Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) Cyber Risk Management Code of Conduct?

48% of Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) Cyber Risk Management Code of Conduct you already have

Azure Security Benchmark already covers about 48% of Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) Cyber Risk Management Code of Conduct, leaving 14 of 27 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 3 Likely covered 10 New work 14

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in Azure Security Benchmark reaches these. This is the list to scope.

BMA-1

Interpretation

BMA-10

Threat Intelligence and Vulnerability Alerting

BMA-12

Board and Senior Management Oversight

BMA-13

Asset Inventory

BMA-14

IT Security Incident Management and Response Team

BMA-15

Notification of Cyber Reporting Events to the Authority

BMA-17

Staff Cyber Risk Awareness Training

BMA-2

Proportionality Principle

BMA-20

Malicious Code Controls

BMA-21

Security Testing Programme

BMA-23

Data Deletion, Sanitisation and Disposal

BMA-27

Cyber Insurance

BMA-5

Three Lines of Defence

BMA-7

Information Technology Audit Plan

Show the 13 you already have

BMA-4

Chief Information Security Officer

BMA-6

Risk Assessment Process

BMA-8

Third-Party, Outsourcing and Cloud Risk

BMA-11

Information Technology Incident Management

BMA-16

Access Management and Segregation of Duties

BMA-18

Data Classification and Security

BMA-19

Data Protection, Governance and Loss Prevention

BMA-22

Patch Management

BMA-24

Network Security Management

BMA-25

Use of Cryptography

BMA-26

Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Planning

BMA-3

Operational Cyber Risk Management Programme

BMA-9

Information Technology Services Management

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Azure Security Benchmark to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair · Today's edition