Know where you stand against NIST CSF 2.0.
Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover. Scored against the controls your Microsoft tenant can actually enforce, then translated into a tier score your board and examiner can read. Built for regional banks and credit unions $1B to $50B in assets.
The framework examiners, boards, and underwriters all reference.
The FFIEC retired the Cybersecurity Assessment Tool on August 31, 2025. Regulators, insurers, and boards are converging on NIST CSF 2.0 as the common language for cyber posture. Most institutions have selected it. Fewer than a third have finished the transition. This assessment closes that gap, using the evidence your Microsoft tenant already produces.
- Purview Compliance Manager CSF 2.0 template
- Entra ID access reviews and role assignments
- Board-ready reporting templates and KRIs
- Supply-chain attestation register (GV.SC)
- Microsoft Secure Score baseline
- Intune device inventory and compliance state
- Defender for Cloud Apps SaaS discovery
- Third-party AI tool shadow-IT map
- Entra ID Conditional Access and phishing-resistant MFA
- Purview DLP policies and sensitivity labels
- Defender for Endpoint hardening baselines
- Tokenator session revocation for regulated data
- Defender XDR correlation across identity, endpoint, email
- Microsoft Sentinel rules and UEBA coverage
- Guardian MxDR 24x7 monitoring
- Unified Audit Log coverage and retention
- Guardian MxDR response runbooks
- Sentinel SOAR playbooks and automations
- Incident response documentation and tabletop artifacts
- Regulator and customer notification templates
- M365 Guardian Backup coverage and restore tests
- Tested business continuity and DR runbooks
- Azure Backup vault and geo-redundancy policies
- Customer and regulator communication timelines
CSF 1.1 to 2.0 in plain terms.
The skeleton is familiar. The emphasis is not. Four shifts change how your assessment is scored and how the findings get presented to your board and your examiners.
Board asked for a NIST CSF 2.0 score at the next audit committee?
A 30-minute readiness call frames scope, confirms the engagement fits your examiner calendar, and shows the scorecard format your board will see. No obligation. No generic questionnaire.
Four phases. Six to eight weeks. Your tenant does most of the work.
We pull the evidence CSF 2.0 asks for from Entra, Purview, Defender, Intune, and Sentinel. Your team stays focused on the institution, not on filling in 318 questionnaire rows by hand.
Deliverables written for humans who read them.
No 400-page PDF. Four tight artifacts designed for the audiences that actually use them: board, examiner, ISO, and your cyber insurer. All aligned to the same underlying evidence set.
Related reading
Deeper treatments of the moving pieces underneath this assessment, written for CISOs and compliance leaders at regional banks and credit unions.
Frequently asked questions
The Community Bank Assessment is CSF 2.0 scoped tightly to FFIEC exam prep and priced for institutions under about $1B in assets. The NIST CSF 2.0 Assessment covers all 106 subcategories at regional-bank depth and produces board, examiner, insurer, and ISO deliverables. Most institutions $1B to $50B choose the NIST assessment; under $1B usually fits the Community Bank version better.
Usually yes, because they answer different audiences. The GSE audit satisfies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seller-servicer obligations (Information Security Supplement and Section 1302). CSF 2.0 answers your board, examiner, and cyber insurer. The good news: one tenant data pull feeds both engagements, so the marginal cost is lower than running them as separate projects.
Institutions over roughly $50B in assets, holdcos with OCC or FRB examiner relationships, and FIs that have already standardized on the Cyber Risk Institute Profile as their single control framework. CRI Profile is built on top of CSF 2.0 with 318 diagnostic statements (208 for smaller tiers) written specifically for banking. If you are not already committed to CRI, start with CSF 2.0.
Six to eight weeks end to end for a single-domain institution. Your team invests roughly 12 to 20 hours across kickoff, the gap-scoring workshop, and the board briefing. The tenant data pull is automated. We do not send you a 400-row questionnaire. The output lands in the examiner calendar window you define at kickoff.
We run it anyway and are honest about what the assessment can and cannot evidence. CSF 2.0 is framework-agnostic. The Microsoft-native mapping is the wedge for institutions already on M365 and Azure, but we score every subcategory against whatever controls you run. Non-Microsoft environments (Google Workspace, AWS, Okta) are noted in the scorecard as evidence sources the next remediation cycle should address.
No. CSF 2.0 is a voluntary framework, not an attestation program. There is no cert body and no audit seal. If your board, customers, or partners require third-party attestation, pair the CSF 2.0 Assessment with SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 from an independent auditor. The evidence we produce makes either of those audits materially easier because it is already tier-scored and organized by subcategory.
CSF 2.0's Govern function now covers AI risk appetite, oversight, and supply-chain assurance, and NIST's preliminary Cyber AI Profile (NISTIR 8596) extends the framework further. The AI Readiness Assessment is the Copilot-specific deep dive into those Govern outcomes, including Freddie Mac Bulletin 2025-16 alignment. Clients deploying Copilot commonly run both engagements from the same tenant data pull.
Ready to score
your CSF 2.0 posture?
30-minute readiness call. We walk through scope, timeline, and the scorecard format your board will see. You leave with a clear answer on fit, no obligation.
