7 standards bodies wrote this down separately. None of them consulted the others. That is not a preference you can argue with, it is what happens.From 7 controls across our corpus
Lithuania Personal Data Protection Law Evidence & Implementation Kit
This is the complete documentation set: an adopt-ready artifact for every control in policy and procedure text you edit rather than draft, and the evidence checklist an auditor asks for against each.
See what is in it, $249
The same set every buyer of this kit receives. Nothing here is produced on request.
Who warns about it
Every framework below independently names this failure. They were written by different
bodies, in different jurisdictions, for different industries, and they agree.
What an auditor asks for
The artefacts named on the controls that warn about this failure. This is what closes
it, and what you will be asked to produce when somebody checks.
- Administrative Court review procedure
- DSS investigation response plan
- Sanctions exposure register (EUR 10M-20M + 2-4% turnover)
- Liechtenstein Penal Code Articles 188 + 195 awareness
- EFTA Court awareness
- Civil liability under ABGB/PGR analysis
What closing it also buys you
The 11 controls that warn about this failure map onto controls in other
frameworks. Close them here and this much of each of those is closed too. It is the same work
counted once, which is usually the difference between a programme that finishes and one that
does not.
New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)87
AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar4
Azure Security Benchmark7
Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)37
Jamaica Data Protection Act 202017
Austria Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz, DSG, amended 2018)21
Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act37
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)20
FDA 21 CFR Part 1123
Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018)37
Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data (UAE PDPL)25
ISO/IEC 27011:20246
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM) New Zealand (GCSB/NCSC) | 87.5% | 7 of 8 |
| AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar International | 4.5% | 4 of 89 |
| Azure Security Benchmark International | 7.4% | 4 of 54 |
| Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) Australia | 37.5% | 3 of 8 |
| Jamaica Data Protection Act 2020 Jamaica | 17.6% | 3 of 17 |
| Austria Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz, DSG, amended 2018) Austria | 21.4% | 3 of 14 |
| Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act United States - Iowa | 37.5% | 3 of 8 |
| Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) United States | 20.0% | 3 of 15 |
| FDA 21 CFR Part 11 United States | 23.1% | 3 of 13 |
| Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018) Iceland | 37.5% | 3 of 8 |
| Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data (UAE PDPL) United Arab Emirates | 25.0% | 3 of 12 |
| ISO/IEC 27011:2024 International | 6.8% | 3 of 44 |
Read as: closing this failure reaches that share of the named
framework's control library through cross-framework mappings held in our corpus. It is not a
claim of compliance with that framework, it is a measure of how much of it you have already
touched.
Where this comes from
Harvested from the control library itself. Every control in our corpus carries the evidence an
auditor expects and the ways implementations commonly fail, recorded when that control was
verified against its source document. This page is those two fields, for one failure, across
every framework that names it.
The overlap is computed by traversing
332,959 cross-framework control mappings out from the specific controls that
warn about this failure, not from the frameworks they sit in. Those mappings were built control
by control against source documents.
Nothing here is inferred, predicted or scored. The number at the top
is a count of frameworks.
All failure modes ·
The index