TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF)vsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)

See exactly how Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls map to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

32
Controls Mapped
7
Gaps Found
36%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) maps to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 36% coverage across 14 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 39 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls identifies 25 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Risk Management.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 39 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 32 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Asset, Change, and Configuration Management(1 mappings)

AESCSF-ACM-3Change Management
→Sec. 314.4(c)(7)Change management procedures

Identity and Access Management(2 mappings)

AESCSF-IAM-2Access Control
→Sec. 314.4(c)(1)Access controls
AESCSF-IAM-3Multi-Factor Authentication
→Sec. 314.4(c)(5)Multi-factor authentication

Event and Incident Response(9 mappings)

AESCSF-IR-1Incident Response Plan3 targets
→FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification
→LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan
→Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan
AESCSF-IR-2Incident Response Capability3 targets
→FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification
→LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan
→Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan
AESCSF-IR-3Incident Reporting3 targets
→FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification
→LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan
→Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan

Situational Awareness and Event Management(1 mappings)

AESCSF-SA-1Logging and Monitoring
→Sec. 314.4(c)(8)Monitoring and logging

Threat and Vulnerability Management(7 mappings)

AESCSF-TVM-1Vulnerability Assessment3 targets
→FTC-314.4gProgram Evaluation and Adjustment
→FTC-314.4iBoard / Senior Officer Reporting
→FTC-314.5Exemption for Small Institutions
CSA-TVM-01Vulnerability Management3 targets
→FTC-314.4hWritten Incident Response Plan
→LLOYDS-IR-02Lloyd's Incident Reporting
→Sec. 314.4(d)Regular testing and monitoring
CSA-TVM-02Penetration Testing
→FTC-314.4hWritten Incident Response Plan

+12 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 693 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

Other Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) comparisons

Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs CSA CCM v424 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs NIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs PAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs Canada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)22 mappings

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

FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)22 mappingsCSA CCM v4 vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)20 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)20 mappingsUS Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) — Higher Education Safeguards Rule vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 mappingsPAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 mappingsCanada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 mappingsNew Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 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 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) has 39 controls across its framework, while FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) covers 36 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 14 overlapping controls (36% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Risk Management, where 13 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls have no direct FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) equivalent.

How many controls map between Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

Of 39 total Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls, 14 map directly to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls — representing 36% coverage. The remaining 25 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

25 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls have no direct equivalent in FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). The highest concentration of gaps is in Risk Management with 13 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 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Risk Management (13 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.