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.
- Denial of service protection configuration and capacity test results
- Cryptographic standards specifying approved algorithms and key lengths
- TLS configuration scan results across in scope endpoints
- Network segmentation diagrams with VLAN and zone mapping
- Boundary protection architecture with firewall and proxy rule documentation
- Key management procedures including rotation and escrow
What closing it also buys you
The 20 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.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| CCSDS 350.0-G-3 International (CCSDS — 11 member agencies) | 29.4% | 5 of 17 |
| NIST SP 800-207 United States | 7.8% | 4 of 51 |
| CNCF Security Technical Advisory Group (TAG) International (CNCF/Linux Foundation) | 12.5% | 3 of 24 |
| ASEAN Data Management Framework ASEAN | 7.4% | 2 of 27 |
| APRA CPS 234 Australia | 5.7% | 2 of 35 |
| African Union Malabo Convention Africa (AU) | 7.1% | 2 of 28 |
| NIST SP 800-171 United States | 2.2% | 2 of 93 |
| Canada ITSG-33 Canada (Canadian Centre for Cyber Security) | 3.8% | 1 of 26 |
| NIST SP 800-53A Rev. 5 United States | 2.1% | 1 of 48 |
| Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 International | 0.5% | 1 of 197 |
| Australia Consumer Data Right Australia | 3.6% | 1 of 28 |
| ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices Australia | 3.4% | 1 of 29 |
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 ·
The index