TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018)vsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)

See exactly how Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) controls map to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

9
Controls Mapped
10
Gaps Found
16%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) maps to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) with 16% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 19 Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) controls identifies 16 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Part V — Remedies and Sanctions.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 19 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 9 of 9 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Part I — General Provisions(3 mappings)

Art. 2Consent Definition3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-4.1Types of Incidents and Level of Support
→RFC2350-4.2Cooperation and Disclosure

Part II — Special Categories of Data Processing(3 mappings)

Art. 4Participating Institutions3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-4.1Types of Incidents and Level of Support
→RFC2350-4.2Cooperation and Disclosure

Part IV — Supervisory Authority (AZOP)(3 mappings)

Art. 8Data Categories3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-4.1Types of Incidents and Level of Support
→RFC2350-4.2Cooperation and Disclosure

Related Comparisons

Other Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) comparisons

Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) vs ILO Nursing Personnel Convention C149 (1977)9 mappingsAct on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) vs 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6, Directive (EU) 2018/1673)9 mappingsAct on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) vs ISO 8000 — Data Quality9 mappingsAct on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) vs FATF Recommendation 16 — Virtual Asset Travel Rule9 mappingsAct on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) vs Privacy by Design (PbD) — Seven Foundational Principles9 mappingsAct on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) vs BS 65000:2014 — Guidance on Organizational Resilience9 mappingsAct on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) vs Hungary Act CXII of 2011 on Informational Self-Determination and Freedom of Information (Info Act)9 mappingsAct on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) vs Brazil Open Finance (Resolução Conjunta No. 1/2020)9 mappings

Other RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) comparisons

ISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)8 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)8 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)8 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsCAIQ (CSA) vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsCISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsIRS Publication 1075 — Tax Information Security Guidelines vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • ✓ Unlimited full-text search
  • ✓ Framework self-assessment
  • ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) has 19 controls across its framework, while RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) covers 18 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 3 overlapping controls (16% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Part V — Remedies and Sanctions, where 4 Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) controls have no direct RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) equivalent.

How many controls map between Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

Of 19 total Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) controls, 3 map directly to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls — representing 16% coverage. The remaining 16 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

16 Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) controls have no direct equivalent in RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). The highest concentration of gaps is in Part V — Remedies and Sanctions with 4 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between Act on the Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (OG 42/2018) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Part V — Remedies and Sanctions (4 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.