TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)vsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)

See exactly how FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls map to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

17
Controls Mapped
19
Gaps Found
19%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) maps to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) with 19% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 36 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls identifies 29 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Incident Response and Reporting.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 36 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Incident Response and Reporting(9 mappings)

FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-5.2Incident Coordination
→RFC2350-5.3Incident Resolution
LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-5.2Incident Coordination
→RFC2350-5.3Incident Resolution
Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-5.2Incident Coordination
→RFC2350-5.3Incident Resolution

Purpose, Scope and Definitions(6 mappings)

Sec. 314.2(a)Definition of financial institution3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-4.1Types of Incidents and Level of Support
→RFC2350-4.2Cooperation and Disclosure
Sec. 314.2(b)Definition of customer information3 targets
→RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement
→RFC2350-4.1Types of Incidents and Level of Support
→RFC2350-4.2Cooperation and Disclosure

Safeguard Elements(2 mappings)

Sec. 314.4(c)(3)Encryption of customer information
→RFC2350-2.3Public Keys and Encryption
Sec. 314.4(c)(5)Multi-factor authentication
→RFC2350-4.3Communication and Authentication

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 CSA CCM v420 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange20 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs US Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) — Higher Education Safeguards Rule19 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 Canada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management19 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)19 mappings

Other RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) comparisons

ISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)8 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)8 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)8 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsCAIQ (CSA) vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsCISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 mappingsIRS Publication 1075 — Tax Information Security Guidelines vs RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)7 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 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) has 36 controls across its framework, while RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) covers 18 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (19% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Incident Response and Reporting, where 13 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) equivalent.

How many controls map between FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

Of 36 total FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls, 7 map directly to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls — representing 19% coverage. The remaining 29 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 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

29 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct equivalent in RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). The highest concentration of gaps is in Incident Response and Reporting 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 FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Incident Response and Reporting (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.