TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

ISMAP (Japan)vsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)

See exactly how ISMAP (Japan) controls map to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

6
Controls Mapped
2
Gaps Found
50%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISMAP (Japan) maps to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 50% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 ISMAP (Japan) controls identifies 4 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in ISMAP Assessment + International Coordination.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 6 of 6 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

ISMAP Cloud Governance(1 mappings)

ISMAP-CloudGovernance-ISMS-RiskAssessment-SharedResponsibility-Policy-RegulatoryCompliance-RolesResponsibilitiesISMAP Cloud Governance - ISMS per ISO 27001/JIS Q 27001 + Risk Assessment + Shared Responsibility Model + Cloud Security Policy + Regulatory Compliance + Roles and Responsibilities
→FTC-Safeguards-Scope-DefsScope, Definitions and Financial Institution Applicability (16 CFR 314.1, 314.2)

ISMAP Cloud Operations(3 mappings)

ISMAP-CloudOperations-Monitoring-Logging-IncidentResponse-NISC-Reporting-Vulnerability-Change-SLAISMAP Cloud Operations - Security Monitoring + SIEM + Logging + Incident Response + NISC Reporting + Vulnerability Management + Penetration Testing + Change Management + SLA Management3 targets
→FTC-Safeguards-9-Elements9 Safeguard Elements - Access, Inventory, Encryption, Secure-Dev, MFA, Disposal, Change-Mgmt, Monitoring, Pen-Test (16 CFR 314.4(c))
→FTC-Safeguards-IR-Plan-BoardReporting-FTC-NotificationWritten Incident Response Plan + Board Reporting + FTC Breach Notification (16 CFR 314.4(h), (i), (j))
→FTC-Safeguards-ServiceProvider-EvaluationService Provider Oversight + Program Evaluation + Personnel Training (16 CFR 314.4(d-g))

ISMAP Data Protection(1 mappings)

ISMAP-DataProtection-Classification-Encryption-DataResidencyJapan-Backup-SecureDeletion-Cryptography-FIPSISMAP Data Protection - Data Classification + AES-256 Encryption At Rest + TLS 1.3 In Transit + Data Residency Japan + Backup + Secure Deletion + Cryptography per FIPS 140-3 + CRYPTREC + KMS HSM
→FTC-Safeguards-9-Elements9 Safeguard Elements - Access, Inventory, Encryption, Secure-Dev, MFA, Disposal, Change-Mgmt, Monitoring, Pen-Test (16 CFR 314.4(c))

ISMAP Identity + Access(1 mappings)

ISMAP-Identity-Access-MFA-Privileged-Federation-SSO-API-Tokens-CloudIAM-PIV-PASETOISMAP Identity and Access Management - Cloud IAM + Multi-Factor Authentication + Privileged Access + Federation/SSO + API Security + Access Tokens + My Number Card Integration + Government IAM
→FTC-Safeguards-9-Elements9 Safeguard Elements - Access, Inventory, Encryption, Secure-Dev, MFA, Disposal, Change-Mgmt, Monitoring, Pen-Test (16 CFR 314.4(c))

Related Comparisons

Other ISMAP (Japan) comparisons

ISMAP (Japan) vs OWASP Top 10:20255 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs OWASP ASVS5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs MITRE D3FEND5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs BSI IT-Grundschutz5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs Azure Security Benchmark5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements5 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs ISO/IEC 27011:20245 mappings

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

Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsVermont Artificial Intelligence and Consumer Data Act (AICDA) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsPrivacy Act 1988 (Australia) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsLey Orgánica de Protección de Datos Personales (LOPDP) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsLaw No. 172-13 on the Protection of Personal Data vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsIndia DPDP Act vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsIndia CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 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 (330K+)
  • ✓ 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 ISMAP (Japan) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

ISMAP (Japan) has 8 controls across its framework, while FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (50% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in ISMAP Assessment + International Coordination, where 1 ISMAP (Japan) controls have no direct FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) equivalent.

How many controls map between ISMAP (Japan) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

Of 8 total ISMAP (Japan) controls, 4 map directly to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls — representing 50% coverage. The remaining 4 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISMAP (Japan) to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

4 ISMAP (Japan) controls have no direct equivalent in FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). The highest concentration of gaps is in ISMAP Assessment + International Coordination with 1 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 ISMAP (Japan) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

The domain with the highest gap count is ISMAP Assessment + International Coordination (1 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.