ISO/IEC 27010:2015vsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)
See exactly how ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls map to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO/IEC 27010:2015 maps to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 14% coverage across 8 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls identifies 38 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 706 frameworks | 324K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 8 of 8 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 324K+ mappings across 706 frameworks.
Cryptography(1 mappings)
Clause 9-10: Access Control and Cryptography(3 mappings)
Continuity(1 mappings)
Clause 14-16: System Development, Supplier Relations, and Incident Management(1 mappings)
Access Control(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 27010:2015 comparisons
Other FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 706 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 706 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (324K+)
- ✓ 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 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
ISO/IEC 27010:2015 has 28 controls across its framework, while FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (14% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance, where 6 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls have no direct FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO/IEC 27010:2015 and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
Of 28 total ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls, 8 map directly to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls — representing 14% coverage. The remaining 38 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 27010:2015 to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
38 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls have no direct equivalent in FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance with 6 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 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance (6 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.