TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial InstitutionsvsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)

See exactly how Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions controls map to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

28
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
63%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions maps to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) with 63% coverage across 12 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 19 Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions controls identifies 7 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Cybersecurity Governance.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 19 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 28 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Cybersecurity Governance(20 mappings)

FAA-CS-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
→EIOPA-GL-10ICT Operations Security
JP-FSA-CYB-GOV-01Board and Senior Management Oversight3 targets
→EIOPA-GL-19ICT Third-Party Risk Management
→EIOPA-GL-4ICT and Security Risks Within the Risk Management System
→TISAX-IS-03Third-Party Risk Management
JP-FSA-CYB-GOV-02Cybersecurity Risk Assessment2 targets
→38.1051(a)General Security Requirements for DCMs
→39.18(a)General Security Requirements for DCOs
JP-FSA-CYB-GOV-03Third-Party Risk Management4 targets
→EIOPA-GL-19ICT Third-Party Risk Management
→EIOPA-GL-25Outsourcing of ICT Services
→EIOPA-GL-4ICT and Security Risks Within the Risk Management System
→TISAX-IS-03Third-Party Risk Management
KUWAIT-GOV-02Organizational Structure and Accountability
→EIOPA-GL-10ICT Operations Security
KUWAIT-GOV-03Risk Management Framework6 targets
→38.1051(a)General Security Requirements for DCMs
→39.18(a)General Security Requirements for DCOs
→EIOPA-GL-19ICT Third-Party Risk Management
→EIOPA-GL-4ICT and Security Risks Within the Risk Management System
→GLI33-4.2Penetration Testing
→TISAX-IS-03Third-Party Risk Management
PNG-CC-CG-02NICTA Oversight2 targets
→TSSR-INFO-2Stored Communications Security
→TSSR-INFO-3Lawful Interception Capability
RBI-CYB-GOV-01Board-Approved Cyber Security Policy
→38.1051(a)General Security Requirements for DCMs

+8 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 693 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

Other Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions comparisons

Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49)13 mappingsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs Defence Security Principles Framework (DSPF)13 mappingsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) Release 202413 mappingsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs NIS2 Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2555)13 mappingsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs PAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments12 mappingsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs Canada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management12 mappingsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)12 mappingsJapan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions vs MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges12 mappings

Other EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) comparisons

Defence Security Principles Framework (DSPF) vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)22 mappingsCSA CCM v4 vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsCFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49) vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsProtective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) Release 2024 vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsEBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)20 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)20 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 Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions and EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?

Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions has 19 controls across its framework, while EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) covers 50 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 12 overlapping controls (63% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Cybersecurity Governance, where 7 Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions controls have no direct EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) equivalent.

How many controls map between Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions and EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?

Of 19 total Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions controls, 12 map directly to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) controls — representing 63% coverage. The remaining 7 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?

7 Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions controls have no direct equivalent in EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023). The highest concentration of gaps is in Cybersecurity Governance 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 Japan FSA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions and EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Cybersecurity Governance (7 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.