TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security IncidentsvsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)

See exactly how ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls map to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

10
Controls Mapped
27
Gaps Found
24%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents maps to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 24% coverage across 9 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 37 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls identifies 28 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 37 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 10 of 10 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution(1 mappings)

ASD37-17TLS encryption between email servers (Limited)
→FTC-Safeguards-9-Elements9 Safeguard Elements - Access, Inventory, Encryption, Secure-Dev, MFA, Disposal, Change-Mgmt, Monitoring, Pen-Test (16 CFR 314.4(c))

Limiting the Extent of Cyber Security Incidents(4 mappings)

ASD37-20Multi-factor authentication (Essential)2 targets
→FTC-Safeguards-9-Elements9 Safeguard Elements - Access, Inventory, Encryption, Secure-Dev, MFA, Disposal, Change-Mgmt, Monitoring, Pen-Test (16 CFR 314.4(c))
→FTC-Safeguards-Risk-AssessmentWritten Risk Assessment (16 CFR 314.4(b))
ASD37-23Protect authentication credentials (Excellent)
→FTC-Safeguards-9-Elements9 Safeguard Elements - Access, Inventory, Encryption, Secure-Dev, MFA, Disposal, Change-Mgmt, Monitoring, Pen-Test (16 CFR 314.4(c))
ASD37-27Outbound data loss prevention (Very Good)
→FTC-Safeguards-9-Elements9 Safeguard Elements - Access, Inventory, Encryption, Secure-Dev, MFA, Disposal, Change-Mgmt, Monitoring, Pen-Test (16 CFR 314.4(c))

Detecting Cyber Security Incidents and Responding(4 mappings)

ASD37-29Host-based IDS/IPS (Very Good)
→FTC-Safeguards-ServiceProvider-EvaluationService Provider Oversight + Program Evaluation + Personnel Training (16 CFR 314.4(d-g))
ASD37-31Hunt to discover incidents (Very Good)
→FTC-Safeguards-IR-Plan-BoardReporting-FTC-NotificationWritten Incident Response Plan + Board Reporting + FTC Breach Notification (16 CFR 314.4(h), (i), (j))
ASD37-32Network-based IDS/IPS (Limited)
→FTC-Safeguards-ServiceProvider-EvaluationService Provider Oversight + Program Evaluation + Personnel Training (16 CFR 314.4(d-g))
ASD37-33Capture network traffic (Limited)
→FTC-Safeguards-IR-Plan-BoardReporting-FTC-NotificationWritten Incident Response Plan + Board Reporting + FTC Breach Notification (16 CFR 314.4(h), (i), (j))

Preventing Malicious Insiders(1 mappings)

ASD37-37Personnel management (Very Good)
→FTC-Safeguards-ServiceProvider-EvaluationService Provider Oversight + Program Evaluation + Personnel Training (16 CFR 314.4(d-g))

Related Comparisons

Other ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents comparisons

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents vs Oman National Cybersecurity Framework20 mappingsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents vs NIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)20 mappingsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents vs NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security18 mappingsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents vs NIST SP 800-14617 mappingsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents vs NIST SP 800-14517 mappingsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents vs NIST SP 800-14417 mappingsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents vs MTCS (Singapore)17 mappingsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents vs ISMAP (Japan)17 mappings

Other FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) comparisons

Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsVermont Artificial Intelligence and Consumer Data Act (AICDA) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsPrivacy Act 1988 (Australia) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsLey Orgánica de Protección de Datos Personales (LOPDP) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsLaw No. 172-13 on the Protection of Personal Data vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsIndia DPDP Act vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsIndia CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 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 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents has 37 controls across its framework, while FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 9 overlapping controls (24% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution, where 16 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls have no direct FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) equivalent.

How many controls map between ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

Of 37 total ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls, 9 map directly to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls — representing 24% coverage. The remaining 28 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

28 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls have no direct equivalent in FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). The highest concentration of gaps is in Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution with 16 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 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution (16 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.