TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)vsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements

See exactly how FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls map to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

18
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
55%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) maps to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements with 55% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 11 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls identifies 5 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in FTC Safeguards Rule: Effective Date, Small Institution Exemption and 2024-2025 Pipeline (314.5, 314.6, Coordination).

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 11 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 18 of 18 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

FTC Safeguards Rule: 9 Safeguard Elements - Access, Encryption, MFA, Disposal, Change, Monitoring, Pen Test (314.4(c))(7 mappings)

FTC-Safeguards-9-Elements9 Safeguard Elements - Access, Inventory, Encryption, Secure-Dev, MFA, Disposal, Change-Mgmt, Monitoring, Pen-Test (16 CFR 314.4(c))7 targets
→3.10Encrypt Sensitive Data in Transit
→3.3.1Audit Record Creation
→3.7Establish and Maintain a Data Classification Scheme
→3.7.1Key generation procedures
→FEDRAMP-SC-13Cryptographic Protection
→FEDRAMP-SC-28Protection of Information at Rest
→FEDRAMP-SC-8Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity

FTC Safeguards Rule: Effective Date, Small Institution Exemption and 2024-2025 Pipeline (314.5, 314.6, Coordination)(1 mappings)

FTC-Safeguards-EffectiveDate-Small-InstitutionEffective Date, Small Institution Exemption and Sectoral Coordination (16 CFR 314.5, 314.6)
→3.11Encrypt Sensitive Data at Rest

FTC Safeguards Rule: Written Incident Response Plan, Board Reporting and FTC Breach Notification (314.4(h-j))(3 mappings)

FTC-Safeguards-IR-Plan-BoardReporting-FTC-NotificationWritten Incident Response Plan + Board Reporting + FTC Breach Notification (16 CFR 314.4(h), (i), (j))3 targets
→3.11Encrypt Sensitive Data at Rest
→3.6Encrypt Data on End-User Devices
→3.6.1Incident Response Capability

FTC Safeguards Rule: Written Risk Assessment (314.4(b))(1 mappings)

FTC-Safeguards-Risk-AssessmentWritten Risk Assessment (16 CFR 314.4(b))
→3.11Encrypt Sensitive Data at Rest

FTC Safeguards Rule: Scope, Definitions and Financial Institution Applicability (16 CFR 314.1, 314.2)(3 mappings)

FTC-Safeguards-Scope-DefsScope, Definitions and Financial Institution Applicability (16 CFR 314.1, 314.2)3 targets
→3.3Configure Data Access Control Lists
→FEDRAMP-CM-6Configuration Settings
→FEDRAMP-CP-9System Backup

FTC Safeguards Rule: Service Provider Oversight and Program Evaluation (314.4(d-g))(3 mappings)

FTC-Safeguards-ServiceProvider-EvaluationService Provider Oversight + Program Evaluation + Personnel Training (16 CFR 314.4(d-g))3 targets
→3.11Encrypt Sensitive Data at Rest
→3.12Segment Data Processing and Storage Based on Sensitivity
→3.2.1Account data storage minimised

Related Comparisons

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

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14)6 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs Vermont Artificial Intelligence and Consumer Data Act (AICDA)6 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)6 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos Personales (LOPDP)6 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs Law No. 172-13 on the Protection of Personal Data6 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs India DPDP Act6 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 20226 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)6 mappings

Other NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements comparisons

NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements20 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements18 mappingsMTCS (Singapore) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements17 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements16 mappingsNIST SP 800-146 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsNIST SP 800-145 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsNIST SP 800-144 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 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 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) has 11 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (55% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in FTC Safeguards Rule: Effective Date, Small Institution Exemption and 2024-2025 Pipeline (314.5, 314.6, Coordination), where 4 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements equivalent.

How many controls map between FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

Of 11 total FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls, 6 map directly to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls — representing 55% coverage. The remaining 5 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 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

5 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. The highest concentration of gaps is in FTC Safeguards Rule: Effective Date, Small Institution Exemption and 2024-2025 Pipeline (314.5, 314.6, Coordination) 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 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

The domain with the highest gap count is FTC Safeguards Rule: Effective Date, Small Institution Exemption and 2024-2025 Pipeline (314.5, 314.6, Coordination) (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.