CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49)SOC 2

CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49) covers 29.5% of SOC 2

18 of the 61 controls in SOC 2 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49). 43 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.

29.5%
of the target already covered
18
controls evidenced
43
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of SOC 2 your CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49) evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.

43 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

Where the gaps are

Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.

A - Availability3 of 3 evidenced
CC - Common Criteria (Security)15 of 33 evidenced, 18 to do
C - Confidentiality0 of 2 evidenced, 2 to do
P - Privacy0 of 18 evidenced, 18 to do
PI - Processing Integrity0 of 5 evidenced, 5 to do

Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.

Claims that held

A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.

37.1401(a)(4), 38.1051(a)(4), 39.18(b)(2)(iii), 49.24(b)(4)SOC2-A1.1argued against and upheld
Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments

Capacity category requires monitoring, testing and analysis of current and projected capacity.

37.1401(c), 38.1051(c), 39.18(c)(1), 49.24(a)(2) and 49.24(d)SOC2-A1.2argued against and upheld
Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability

Requires backup facilities and technological resources sufficient for timely recovery.

37.1401(a)(7), 38.1051(a)(7), 39.18(b)(2)(vi), 49.24(b)(7)SOC2-A1.2argued against and upheld
Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability

Requires power, telecommunication, environmental controls and fire protection for facilities.

37.1401(h), 38.1051(h), 39.18(e)(1)(ii), 49.24(a)(3), 49.24(e)(4) and 49.24(j)SOC2-A1.3argued against and upheld
Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures

Requires regular periodic testing of recovery capabilities with results retained.

37.1401(e), 38.1051(e), 39.18(g), 49.24(g)SOC2-CC2.3argued against and upheld
COSO principle 15: Communicates with external parties regarding matters affecting controls

Requires prompt external notification of security incidents, malfunctions and recovery plan activation to the Commission.

37.1401(h)(7), 38.1051(h)(7), 39.18(e)(7), 49.24(j)(7)SOC2-CC3.2argued against and upheld
COSO principle 7: Identifies risks and analyzes to determine how managed

Annual written enterprise technology risk assessment identifies, estimates and prioritises risks against mitigating controls.

37.1401(h)(5), 38.1051(h)(5), 39.18(e)(5), 49.24(j)(5)SOC2-CC4.1argued against and upheld
COSO principle 16: Selects and develops ongoing and separate evaluations

Controls testing covers every control in the programme, with key controls independently tested.

37.1401(h), 38.1051(h), 39.18(e)(1)(i), 49.24(j)SOC2-CC4.1argued against and upheld
COSO principle 16: Selects and develops ongoing and separate evaluations

Requires regular periodic objective testing and review of automated systems and controls.

Claims that did not hold

Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.

The full report

Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.

Buy this crosswalk