TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)vsNevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements

See exactly how FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls map to Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

22
Controls Mapped
36
Gaps Found
24%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) maps to Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements with 24% coverage across 14 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 58 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls identifies 44 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Safeguard Elements.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 58 controls analysed | 719 frameworks | 428K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 22 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 428K+ mappings across 719 frameworks.

Incident Response and Reporting(16 mappings)

FTC-314.4gProgram Evaluation and Adjustment2 targets
→FTC-314.4iBoard / Senior Officer Reporting
→FTC-314.5Exemption for Small Institutions
FTC-314.4hWritten Incident Response Plan
→LLOYDS-IR-02Lloyd's Incident Reporting
FTC-314.4iBoard / Senior Officer Reporting2 targets
→FTC-314.4gProgram Evaluation and Adjustment
→FTC-314.5Exemption for Small Institutions
FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification2 targets
→LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan
→Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan
FTC-314.5Exemption for Small Institutions2 targets
→FTC-314.4gProgram Evaluation and Adjustment
→FTC-314.4iBoard / Senior Officer Reporting
LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan3 targets
→FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification
→LLOYDS-IR-03Resilience and Recovery
→Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan
LLOYDS-IR-02Lloyd's Incident Reporting
→FTC-314.4hWritten Incident Response Plan
LLOYDS-IR-03Resilience and Recovery
→LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan
Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan2 targets
→FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification
→LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan

Purpose, Scope and Definitions(2 mappings)

Sec. 314.1Purpose and scope
→FTC-314.5Exemption for Small Institutions
Sec. 314.2(b)Definition of customer information
→NGC-5.260(i)Patron and Employee Data Protection

Information Security Programme Standards(1 mappings)

Sec. 314.3(a)Comprehensive information security programme
→FTC-314.5Exemption for Small Institutions

Safeguard Elements(1 mappings)

Sec. 314.4(c)(6)Data disposal procedures
→NGC-5.260(i)Patron and Employee Data Protection

+2 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 719 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

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

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)22 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)19 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs PAS 1192-5:2015 - Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments19 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)19 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges19 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs NRC 10 CFR 73.54 - Nuclear Facility Cybersecurity19 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs TISAX - Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange19 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs ISO 2701818 mappings

Other Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements comparisons

Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8) vs Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements10 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 - Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements10 mappingsISO 27018 vs Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements10 mappingsSSAE 18 - Attestation Standards (SOC Reporting) vs Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements10 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements10 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements10 mappingsFTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements10 mappingsPAS 1192-5:2015 - Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments vs Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements10 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 719 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 719 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (428K+)
  • ✓ 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 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements?

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) has 58 controls across its framework, while Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements covers 44 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 14 overlapping controls (24% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Safeguard Elements, where 8 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements equivalent.

How many controls map between FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements?

Of 58 total FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls, 14 map directly to Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements controls — representing 24% coverage. The remaining 44 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 Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements?

44 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct equivalent in Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements. The highest concentration of gaps is in Safeguard Elements with 8 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 Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements?

The domain with the highest gap count is Safeguard Elements (8 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.