GLBAvsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems
See exactly how GLBA controls map to NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
GLBA maps to NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems with 17% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 12 GLBA controls identifies 10 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in GLBA: 2024-2025 Pipeline, Coordination and Cross-Mapping to Subordinate Substantive Rules.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 12 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 5 of 5 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
GLBA: Subchapter I (15 USC 6801-6809) Privacy and Safeguarding Obligations(2 mappings)
GLBA: Operationalisation through FTC Safeguards Rule, FTC Privacy Rule, SEC Reg S-P(3 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other GLBA comparisons
Other NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 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 GLBA and NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems?
GLBA has 12 controls across its framework, while NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (17% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GLBA: 2024-2025 Pipeline, Coordination and Cross-Mapping to Subordinate Substantive Rules, where 4 GLBA controls have no direct NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems equivalent.
How many controls map between GLBA and NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems?
Of 12 total GLBA controls, 2 map directly to NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems controls — representing 17% coverage. The remaining 10 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping GLBA to NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems?
10 GLBA controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems. The highest concentration of gaps is in GLBA: 2024-2025 Pipeline, Coordination and Cross-Mapping to Subordinate Substantive Rules 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 GLBA and NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems?
The domain with the highest gap count is GLBA: 2024-2025 Pipeline, Coordination and Cross-Mapping to Subordinate Substantive Rules (4 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 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.