ISO/IEC 29147:2018vsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)
See exactly how ISO/IEC 29147:2018 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 29147:2018 maps to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 18% coverage across 9 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 40 ISO/IEC 29147:2018 controls identifies 39 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 6: Receiving Vulnerability Reports.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 40 controls analysed | 700 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 21 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 700 frameworks.
Clause 1-4: Introduction(6 mappings)
Legal(4 mappings)
Clause 5: Vulnerability Disclosure Concepts(6 mappings)
Disclosure Artefacts(2 mappings)
Clause 7: Publishing Vulnerability Advisories(2 mappings)
+1 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 700 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever — no credit card required
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 29147:2018 comparisons
Other FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 700 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 700 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (330K+)
- ✓ 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 29147:2018 and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
ISO/IEC 29147:2018 has 40 controls across its framework, while FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 9 overlapping controls (18% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 6: Receiving Vulnerability Reports, where 7 ISO/IEC 29147:2018 controls have no direct FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO/IEC 29147:2018 and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
Of 40 total ISO/IEC 29147:2018 controls, 9 map directly to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls — representing 18% coverage. The remaining 39 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 29147:2018 to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
39 ISO/IEC 29147:2018 controls have no direct equivalent in FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 6: Receiving Vulnerability Reports with 7 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 29147:2018 and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 6: Receiving Vulnerability Reports (7 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.