TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)vsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)

See exactly how RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls map to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

17
Controls Mapped
1
Gaps Found
39%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) maps to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 39% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 18 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls identifies 11 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Section 3 - Charter.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 18 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Section 2 - Contact Information(1 mappings)

RFC2350-2.3Public Keys and Encryption
→Sec. 314.4(c)(3)Encryption of customer information

Section 3 - Charter(5 mappings)

RFC2350-3.1Mission Statement5 targets
→FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification
→LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan
→Sec. 314.2(a)Definition of financial institution
→Sec. 314.2(b)Definition of customer information
→Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan

Section 4 - Policies(5 mappings)

RFC2350-4.1Types of Incidents and Level of Support2 targets
→Sec. 314.2(a)Definition of financial institution
→Sec. 314.2(b)Definition of customer information
RFC2350-4.2Cooperation and Disclosure2 targets
→Sec. 314.2(a)Definition of financial institution
→Sec. 314.2(b)Definition of customer information
RFC2350-4.3Communication and Authentication
→Sec. 314.4(c)(5)Multi-factor authentication

Section 5 - Services(6 mappings)

RFC2350-5.2Incident Coordination3 targets
→FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification
→LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan
→Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan
RFC2350-5.3Incident Resolution3 targets
→FTC-314.4jFTC Breach Notification
→LLOYDS-IR-01Incident Response Plan
→Sec. 314.4(h)Incident response plan

Related Comparisons

Other RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) comparisons

RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) vs ISO/IEC 27400:20228 mappingsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) vs FAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation8 mappingsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange8 mappingsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) vs CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.07 mappingsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) vs CAIQ (CSA)7 mappingsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)7 mappingsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) vs CISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines7 mappingsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) vs IRS Publication 1075 — Tax Information Security Guidelines7 mappings

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

FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)22 mappingsCSA CCM v4 vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)20 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)20 mappingsUS Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) — Higher Education Safeguards Rule vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 mappingsPAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 mappingsCanada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 mappingsNew Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM) vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)19 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 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) has 18 controls across its framework, while FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) covers 36 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (39% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Section 3 - Charter, where 3 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls have no direct FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) equivalent.

How many controls map between RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

Of 18 total RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls, 7 map directly to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls — representing 39% coverage. The remaining 11 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

11 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls have no direct equivalent in FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). The highest concentration of gaps is in Section 3 - Charter with 3 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 RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Section 3 - Charter (3 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.