Organizations invest time and resources into cloud security assessments expecting valuable insights in return. But what exactly should you receive after completing an assessment? Understanding typical deliverables helps set realistic expectations, enables comparison between assessment options, and ensures you can actually act on the results rather than filing another report that never gets implemented.
High-quality cloud security assessments deliver more than lists of vulnerabilities. They provide context about your current security posture, benchmark you against industry standards, explain why findings matter to your specific business, and offer actionable remediation guidance ranked by priority. The best assessments transform raw security data into strategic roadmaps that guide security investments over months or years.
This guide explores what deliverables you should expect from different types of cloud security assessments, how to interpret and prioritize findings, and how to translate assessment results into security program improvements.
The Core Deliverables of Modern Cloud Security Assessments
Effective cloud security assessments provide several key deliverables that serve different stakeholders and purposes:
Cloud Maturity Score
A cloud maturity score quantifies your security posture on a standardized scale, typically 0-100%, allowing you to:
Benchmark Against Peers: Understanding that your organization scores 67% provides context—are you ahead of or behind typical organizations in your industry? Maturity scores enable meaningful comparisons.
Track Progress Over Time: Running assessments quarterly or semi-annually shows whether your security investments improve posture. A score increasing from 52% to 71% demonstrates measurable security program progress to executives and boards.
Communicate with Non-Technical Stakeholders: Executives understand percentages and letter grades more intuitively than technical vulnerability counts. Saying "our cloud security maturity is B-level, improving toward A-level" communicates more effectively than "we have 147 medium-severity findings."
Maturity Tier Classification
Beyond numeric scores, tier classifications provide qualitative context:
Initial/Ad Hoc (0-39%): Security controls are reactive, inconsistent, and undocumented. The organization responds to security issues as they arise but lacks systematic approaches.
Developing (40-59%): Basic security controls exist, but implementation is inconsistent across environments. Documentation is emerging but incomplete.
Defined (60-74%): Security controls are documented, standardized across the organization, and consistently applied. The organization has moved from reactive to proactive security.
Managed (75-89%): Security controls are continuously monitored, measured, and improved based on metrics. The organization demonstrates security program maturity suitable for most compliance frameworks.
Optimizing (90-100%): Security controls are continuously refined based on threat intelligence, business changes, and lessons learned. The organization achieves security excellence rarely seen outside highly regulated industries or security-focused companies.
Most organizations target the "Managed" tier (75-89%), which demonstrates strong security practices without the extensive investment required for "Optimizing" maturity.
Framework Alignment Snapshots
Understanding how your current security posture maps to industry frameworks provides essential context:
CIS Benchmark Alignment
The Center for Internet Security (CIS) publishes detailed security configuration benchmarks for AWS, Azure, and GCP. Assessment results should show:
Overall CIS Compliance Percentage: What percentage of applicable CIS recommendations does your organization currently implement? Compliance rates above 80% indicate strong configuration security.
Domain-Level Breakdown: CIS Benchmarks organize recommendations into domains (IAM, Logging, Monitoring, Networking, Storage). Seeing domain-level compliance reveals where you excel and where gaps exist. For example:
- IAM: 73% compliant
- Logging & Monitoring: 91% compliant
- Networking: 58% compliant
This breakdown immediately highlights networking as a priority remediation area.
Critical vs. Standard Findings: Not all CIS recommendations carry equal risk. Assessments should distinguish critical misconfigurations (publicly accessible databases, missing encryption) from standard hardening opportunities (log retention periods, monitoring alert configurations).
NIST Cybersecurity Framework Alignment
The NIST CSF organizes security activities into five functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. Assessment results should map your controls to these functions:
Function-Level Maturity: Showing maturity for each function helps prioritize security investments. An organization with strong "Protect" (85%) but weak "Detect" (42%) should invest in monitoring and detection capabilities before adding more protection controls.
Category Coverage: Within each function, categories provide more granular insights. For example, under "Protect," separate scores for:
- Identity Management, Authentication and Access Control
- Data Security
- Information Protection Processes and Procedures
- Maintenance
- Protective Technology
This granularity guides specific remediation priorities rather than generic "improve your security" advice.
Subcategory Implementation Status: The most detailed NIST CSF mapping shows which specific subcategories are fully implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented. This level of detail directly informs remediation roadmaps.
Other Compliance Framework Mapping
Organizations with specific compliance requirements (HIPAA, PCI DSS, SOC 2, ISO 27001) should receive assessment results mapped to relevant frameworks. For example:
HIPAA Security Rule: Which of the required HIPAA security controls does your cloud configuration implement? Which administrative, physical, and technical safeguards need improvement?
PCI DSS: How does your cloud environment align with Payment Card Industry requirements? Which of the 12 PCI DSS requirements are satisfied by current controls?
SOC 2 Trust Service Criteria: For organizations pursuing SOC 2 certification, how do cloud security controls map to Common Criteria (security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, privacy)?
This compliance mapping transforms technical findings into audit-readiness insights.
Prioritized Remediation Roadmap
The most valuable assessment deliverable is an actionable remediation plan that sequences fixes by priority:
Risk-Based Prioritization
Not all security findings pose equal risk. Effective roadmaps prioritize based on:
Severity: Critical findings that could lead to data breaches, service disruptions, or compliance failures receive top priority. Examples include:
- Publicly accessible databases containing sensitive data
- Missing encryption on data at rest
- Overly permissive IAM policies granting unnecessary administrative access
- Disabled logging for critical security events
Exploitability: How easily could attackers leverage this weakness? Findings that require no special access or sophisticated techniques to exploit rank higher than those requiring insider access or advanced capabilities.
Exposure: Are vulnerable resources exposed to the internet, or do they reside in private networks requiring prior network access? Public exposure increases priority.
Compliance Impact: Findings that directly violate compliance requirements affecting your industry (HIPAA for healthcare, PCI DSS for payment processing) receive elevated priority regardless of technical severity.
Implementation Difficulty
Priority isn't the only factor—implementation complexity matters too. The most actionable roadmaps consider:
Quick Wins: Low-effort, high-impact fixes that can be implemented immediately. Examples include:
- Enabling MFA for privileged accounts (15-30 minutes)
- Enabling CloudTrail or equivalent logging (30 minutes)
- Removing public access from storage buckets (15 minutes per bucket)
Quick wins build momentum and demonstrate immediate security improvement.
Medium-Effort Improvements: Changes requiring coordination across teams or modest configuration adjustments. Examples include:
- Implementing least-privilege IAM policies (2-4 hours per major role)
- Configuring security group rules following least-privilege principles (4-8 hours)
- Enabling and configuring security monitoring tools (4-8 hours)
Major Projects: Significant security improvements requiring weeks or months of effort. Examples include:
- Implementing network segmentation across environments (weeks)
- Migrating to infrastructure-as-code for security consistency (months)
- Deploying comprehensive security operations center (SOC) capabilities (months)
Effective roadmaps sequence fixes to achieve early wins while planning for larger initiatives.
Phased Implementation Timeline
Rather than overwhelming teams with hundreds of recommendations, quality roadmaps organize fixes into phases:
Phase 1 (Immediate - 30 days): Critical findings and quick wins that stop active bleeding and achieve early security improvements.
Phase 2 (1-3 months): High-priority findings requiring moderate effort, building on Phase 1 foundations.
Phase 3 (3-6 months): Medium-priority findings and foundational security improvements preparing for advanced capabilities.
Phase 4 (6-12 months): Defense-in-depth enhancements, advanced security capabilities, and continuous improvement initiatives.
This phasing prevents security initiative overload while ensuring systematic progress.
Specific Remediation Guidance
Generic recommendations like "improve IAM security" provide little value. High-quality assessments include specific, actionable guidance:
Configuration Examples
Rather than saying "enable encryption," quality assessments provide exact steps:
"Enable S3 bucket encryption:
- Navigate to the S3 service in AWS Console
- Select the bucket requiring encryption
- Click 'Properties' tab
- Under 'Default encryption,' choose 'Enable'
- Select 'SSE-S3' or 'SSE-KMS' based on key management requirements
- Click 'Save changes'
Verify encryption is enabled by returning to the Properties tab and confirming 'Default encryption' shows 'Enabled.'"
This specificity enables immediate action rather than requiring teams to research proper configurations.
Infrastructure-as-Code Templates
For organizations using Terraform, CloudFormation, or ARM templates, providing example code accelerates remediation:
# Terraform example for S3 bucket with encryption
resource "aws_s3_bucket" "example" {
bucket = "example-bucket-name"
server_side_encryption_configuration {
rule {
apply_server_side_encryption_by_default {
sse_algorithm = "AES256"
}
}
}
}
Code examples eliminate translation effort from security recommendations to actual implementation.
Policy Documents
For IAM findings, assessments should include example policies implementing least-privilege principles:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:GetObject",
"s3:PutObject"
],
"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::specific-bucket/*"
}
]
}
This specificity prevents overly permissive policies that create new security gaps while remediating others.
Links to Documentation
Assessments should reference authoritative documentation for deeper learning:
- Cloud provider security best practices guides
- CIS Benchmark detailed rationales
- NIST Special Publication 800-series guides
- Compliance framework documentation
These references enable teams to understand not just what to fix, but why it matters and what broader security principles apply.
Additional Valuable Deliverables
Comprehensive assessments may include additional deliverables:
Executive Summary
A 1-2 page executive summary communicates key findings to non-technical leadership:
- Overall security posture (maturity score and tier)
- Critical findings requiring immediate attention
- Key security strengths worth highlighting
- Estimated effort and investment needed for remediation
- Business risks posed by identified gaps
Executive summaries use business language rather than technical jargon, focusing on risk and business impact.
Detailed Technical Report
For security and DevOps teams, a comprehensive technical report provides:
- Complete finding inventory with severity ratings
- Evidence supporting each finding (screenshots, configuration exports)
- Detailed remediation steps for each finding
- Verification procedures to confirm successful remediation
- References to relevant security standards and best practices
Technical reports may span dozens or hundreds of pages for comprehensive assessments.
Comparison to Previous Assessments
For organizations conducting regular assessments, comparison reports show:
- Score improvements or declines since last assessment
- Newly remediated findings
- Newly introduced findings (indicating configuration drift or new deployments)
- Progress toward remediation roadmap goals
Trend analysis demonstrates security program effectiveness over time.
Access to Support Resources
Some assessments include follow-up support:
- Email or phone consultation to discuss findings
- Clarification of recommendations
- Assistance with prioritization decisions
- Optional managed remediation services
This ongoing support transforms one-time assessments into continuous security partnerships.
What To Do With Assessment Results
Receiving assessment deliverables is just the beginning. Successful organizations:
Share Results Broadly
Don't limit assessment results to security teams. Share:
- Executive summaries with leadership and board
- Detailed findings with DevOps and cloud engineering teams
- Compliance mappings with audit and compliance teams
- Roadmaps with project management for resource planning
Schedule Roadmap Kickoff
Hold a kickoff meeting to:
- Review prioritized remediation roadmap
- Assign ownership for each remediation item
- Establish timelines and milestones
- Identify resource needs (budget, staff, tools)
- Create tracking mechanism for remediation progress
Track Remediation Progress
Use project management tools to track remediation:
- Create tickets/tasks for each finding
- Assign owners and due dates
- Track status (not started, in progress, blocked, completed)
- Update stakeholders regularly on progress
Schedule Follow-Up Assessment
Plan the next assessment:
- Quarterly for rapidly evolving environments
- Semi-annually for stable environments
- Annually for mature security programs
Regular assessment cadence ensures continuous improvement rather than one-time fixes.
Conclusion
High-quality cloud security assessments deliver comprehensive results that serve multiple stakeholders and enable actionable security improvements. At minimum, expect a cloud maturity score with tier classification, alignment snapshots showing compliance with CIS Benchmarks and NIST CSF, a prioritized remediation roadmap ranked by risk and effort, and specific implementation guidance for addressing identified gaps.
The most valuable assessments go beyond identifying problems to provide practical solutions, complete with configuration examples, infrastructure-as-code templates, and links to relevant documentation. They organize hundreds of potential improvements into phased roadmaps that prevent overwhelming security teams while ensuring systematic security posture improvement.
Ultimately, assessment deliverables should answer three critical questions: Where are we now? How do we compare to security standards? What should we do next? Organizations that effectively leverage assessment results—sharing findings broadly, tracking remediation systematically, and conducting regular follow-up assessments—build security programs that continuously improve rather than remaining static.
Ready to see exactly what insights your cloud security posture reveals? The Interactive Cloud Security Self-Assessment (iCSAT) delivers instant results including your cloud maturity score with tier classification, CIS and NIST alignment snapshots, and a personalized, prioritized remediation roadmap with specific implementation guidance—all in just 5-7 minutes, with no lead capture required.
