Map ISO/IEC 27017 cloud guidance through risk treatment and the ; do not substitute one edition's clause number for another.
follows ISO/IEC 27002:2013. A current ISO/IEC 27001:2022 ISMS uses the reorganized 2022 Annex A controls, so every link needs an edition, rationale, responsibility split, and evidence.
extends the control guidance in ISO/IEC 27002:2013 for cloud providers and customers. ISO/IEC 27001 supplies certifiable information security management system (ISMS) requirements; mapping the older cloud guidance to a 2022 ISMS therefore requires version-aware traceability, not a clause-number substitution.
1
Section 1
How should ISO/IEC 27017 be mapped into ISO/IEC 27001?
Keep four layers separate: ISO/IEC 27001 ISMS requirements, its Annex A reference controls, ISO/IEC 27002 implementation guidance, and ISO/IEC 27017 cloud-specific guidance and additional controls. A cross-reference does not make guidance a certifiable requirement.
follows the 2013 ISO/IEC 27002 structure and adds seven CLD controls: shared roles, removal of customer assets, virtual-environment segregation, virtual-machine hardening, administrator operational security, cloud-service monitoring, and alignment of virtual and physical network security.
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 27002:2022 reorganized and renumbered the control set. Map each 2015 item by purpose and risk treatment, record whether coverage is full or partial, and add an organization-specific control where no single 2022 control expresses the treatment.
For an ISO/IEC 27001-conformant ISMS, the 2015 standard says the should be extended to include its Annex A cloud controls when the organization intends to implement them. The organization still determines necessary controls through risk treatment and records inclusion, implementation status, and justification in its current Statement of Applicability (SoA).
Record the exact source and target editions, including ISO/IEC 27001:2022/Amd 1:2024 where applicable.
Start with the cloud risk and provider/customer responsibility matrix, not a copied crosswalk.
Link each selected treatment to the SoA or control register, responsible party, contract or configuration, evidence, exception, and review trigger.
Keep old identifiers as source references; do not relabel them as 2022 control identifiers.
Official publication of the identical 2015 text supporting the seven CLD controls and the direction to extend the SoA when implementing them in an ISO/IEC 27001-conformant ISMS.
2
Section 2
What fields belong in the mapping record?
A useful map explains the relationship instead of listing two identifiers. It should show the source text's purpose, the cloud risk, the chosen ISO/IEC 27001 treatment, and what remains outside the target control.
Separate provider evidence from customer evidence. A provider control may support the treatment while a customer configuration, monitoring rule, access review, or recovery test remains necessary. For example, provider evidence for tenant segregation does not establish that an infrastructure as a service (IaaS) customer hardened its virtual machines, restricted required ports and services, enabled malware protection, or collected guest and application logs.
Source: ISO/IEC 27017 edition, clause or CLD identifier, control purpose, and provider/customer guidance used.
Target: ISO/IEC 27001 edition, Annex A or organization-specific control, mapping rationale, and full, partial, or no direct coverage.
Governance: SoA or control-register reference, applicability and justification, implementation status, evidence owner, exception, approval, and review trigger.
Evidence: provider assurance and service documentation plus customer access, configuration, logging, monitoring, vulnerability, backup, incident, and exit records as relevant.
Controls CLD.9.5.1 and CLD.9.5.2 and clause 12.4.1 support the example distinction between provider tenant segregation and customer virtual-machine hardening and logging.
3
Section 3
What is the mapping workflow?
Build the map once for the organization's approved editions, then apply it to each cloud service through its risk assessment and responsibility model. A library crosswalk can suggest candidates, but the service record should explain the selected treatment and evidence.
Review ambiguous or partial mappings with the ISMS control owner. If the 2015 cloud objective is broader than the candidate 2022 control, retain the remainder as an additional control or separate treatment rather than declaring complete coverage.
1. Freeze the source and target editions and collect any authorized transition mapping used by the organization.
2. Identify the cloud service risks, provider chain, deployment and service models, and responsibility allocation.
3. Map the purpose of each applicable 2015 guidance item or CLD control to the current treatment; mark full, partial, or no direct coverage.
4. Update the SoA or control register, assign provider and customer owners, and link agreements, configurations, and evidence.
5. Review gaps, approve residual risk, and set triggers for service, responsibility, risk, and edition changes.
Primary ISO listing for cloud-service security control guidance.
Code of practice for information security controls based on ISO/IEC 27002 for cloud services
Recommended next step
Version the map before using it
Record both editions, mapping rationale, partial coverage, provider and customer owners, SoA treatment, and the evidence that shows each control operates.
Correct maps that hide editions, equate guidance with requirements, or assume one 2022 control fully covers a broader cloud objective. A mapping is an implementation decision, not proof that the control operates.
Keep legal and contractual requirements in the same traceability chain but identify their source. ISO/IEC 27017 can help structure a treatment; it does not create the law or contract duty.
Do not copy 2013 clause numbers into a 2022 SoA as if the numbering were unchanged.
Do not omit the seven CLD controls because they lack a one-to-one 2022 match.
Do not mark coverage complete when provider and customer duties or operating evidence remain unassigned.
Do not use a generic crosswalk after the service, supplier chain, responsibility boundary, or risk changes.
Primary ISO listing for the ISO/IEC 27002 information security control guidance standard.
Information security controls
5
Section 5
When should the map be revised?
Review the mapping when the source or target standard changes, and reapply it when the service model, provider chain, architecture, agreement, risk, or responsibility boundary changes. Update the SoA, control register, evidence index, and service assessment together.
ISO now lists the 2015 edition as withdrawn and ISO/IEC 27017:2026 as its replacement. This page retains the 2015 guidance; confirm the edition required by the agreement or assessment before reusing its control references. Build any replacement mapping from the adopted edition, rather than assuming that the 2015 identifiers remain unchanged.
Version the mapping library and retain the edition used by each service assessment.
Track partial mappings and unmapped treatment elements to closure or authorized risk acceptance.
Reconfirm owners and evidence after provider, contract, architecture, or standard changes.
Official ITU publication of the identical 2015 text, including the seven CLD controls and the direction to extend the SoA when implementing them in an ISO/IEC 27001-conformant ISMS.
Official publication of the identical 2015 text supporting the seven CLD controls and the direction to extend the SoA when implementing them in an ISO/IEC 27001-conformant ISMS.
Controls CLD.9.5.1 and CLD.9.5.2 and clause 12.4.1 support the example distinction between provider tenant segregation and customer virtual-machine hardening and logging.