Named by 3 frameworks

No restore tests

3 of the 723 frameworks in our corpus warn about this same failure, across 3 separate controls. That convergence is the measurement: it is not one standard's opinion.

Updated

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.

What closing it also buys you

The 4 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 progressesCovered Controls reached
ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents
Australia
8.1%3 of 37
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
United States
2.8%3 of 106
ISO 27019
International
6.5%3 of 46
ISO/IEC 27031:2011
International
11.1%3 of 27
API 1164
United States
12.5%3 of 24
NIST SP 1800-32
United States
6.8%3 of 44
IEC 62443
International
3.7%3 of 81
SSAE 18
International
4.5%3 of 67
SANS Incident Handler's Handbook and PICERL Methodology
International (SANS Institute)
7.5%3 of 40
NIST SP 800-171A
United States
6.2%2 of 32
NFPA 1600
United States (NFPA)
5.7%2 of 35
ISO 22317
International
5.6%2 of 36

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