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.
- Configuration management policy and change control procedure
- Approved baseline configurations for each platform family
- Emergency change records with retroactive approvals
- Configuration drift detection reports from the CMDB or tooling
- Change advisory board minutes with risk assessments
- Software inventory generated from authoritative discovery tooling
What closing it also buys you
The 10 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 800-12835
CNCF Security Technical Advisory Group (TAG)16
API 116416
CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model6
DISA Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs)13
Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.11
NIST SP 800-1728
NIST SP 800-2187
ACSC Essential Eight12
ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents8
BSI IT-Grundschutz5
Canada ITSG-337
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| NIST SP 800-128 United States | 35.9% | 14 of 39 |
| CNCF Security Technical Advisory Group (TAG) International (CNCF/Linux Foundation) | 16.7% | 4 of 24 |
| API 1164 United States | 16.7% | 4 of 24 |
| CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model United States | 6.5% | 3 of 46 |
| DISA Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) United States | 13.6% | 3 of 22 |
| Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 International | 1.5% | 3 of 197 |
| NIST SP 800-172 United States | 8.3% | 3 of 36 |
| NIST SP 800-218 United States | 7.1% | 3 of 42 |
| ACSC Essential Eight Australia | 12.5% | 3 of 24 |
| ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents Australia | 8.1% | 3 of 37 |
| BSI IT-Grundschutz Germany | 5.5% | 3 of 55 |
| Canada ITSG-33 Canada (Canadian Centre for Cyber Security) | 7.7% | 2 of 26 |
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