FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)vsIndia CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022
See exactly how FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls map to India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) maps to India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 with 16% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 37 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls identifies 31 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Testing, personnel, service providers and adjustment (314.4(d) to (g)) – FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 37 controls analysed | 1,248 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 8 of 8 control mappings across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 1,248 frameworks.
Superseded batch representation – FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)(8 mappings)
A FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) to India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 controls your existing FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 16% in the header counts how many FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) comparisons
Other India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 1,248 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 1,248 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022?
FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) has 37 controls across its framework, while India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (16% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Testing, personnel, service providers and adjustment (314.4(d) to (g)) – FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314), where 10 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 equivalent.
How many controls map between FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022?
Of 37 total FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls, 6 map directly to India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 controls, representing 16% coverage. The remaining 31 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) to India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022?
31 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct equivalent in India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022. The highest concentration of gaps is in Testing, personnel, service providers and adjustment (314.4(d) to (g)) – FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 10 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 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022?
The domain with the highest gap count is Testing, personnel, service providers and adjustment (314.4(d) to (g)) – FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) (10 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are judged interpretations, grounded in the source text of both frameworks, 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.