NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205)vsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)
See exactly how NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) controls map to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) maps to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 62% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) controls identifies 3 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Crypto-Agility.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 703 frameworks | 307K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 5 of 5 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 307K+ mappings across 703 frameworks.
FIPS 203 ML-KEM(1 mappings)
FIPS 205 SLH-DSA(1 mappings)
Inventory and Migration(1 mappings)
Validation and HSMs(1 mappings)
Implementation Operations(1 mappings)
A NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls your existing NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 62% in the header counts how many NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) comparisons
Other FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 703 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 703 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (307K+)
- ✓ 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 NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) has 8 controls across its framework, while FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) covers 37 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (62% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Crypto-Agility, where 1 NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) controls have no direct FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
Of 8 total NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) controls, 5 map directly to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls, representing 62% coverage. The remaining 3 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
3 NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) controls have no direct equivalent in FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). The highest concentration of gaps is in Crypto-Agility 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 NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Crypto-Agility (1 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.