TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF)vsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

11
Controls Mapped
28
Gaps Found
28%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 28% coverage across 11 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 39 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls identifies 28 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Risk Management.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 39 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Identity and Access Management(1 mappings)

AESCSF-IAM-2Access Control
→IMO-CY-2.1Access Control

Situational Awareness and Event Management(1 mappings)

AESCSF-SA-2Anomaly Detection
→IMO-CY-3.1Anomaly Detection

Supply Chain and Dependencies(1 mappings)

AESCSF-SC-1Supply Chain Risk Management
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities

Threat and Vulnerability Management(2 mappings)

AESCSF-TVM-1Vulnerability Assessment
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment
AESCSF-TVM-2Threat Intelligence
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities

Risk Management(6 mappings)

CDP-RM-1Risk Identification Process
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment
CDP-RM-3Value Chain Risk Assessment
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment
FAA-CS-3.1Data-Driven Risk Management
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
FAA-CS-3.2Supply Chain Risk Management
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
GAMP5-1.1Risk-Based Approach
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
GAMP5-1.2Patient Safety Risk Assessment
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment

Related Comparisons

Other Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) comparisons

Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs CSA CCM v424 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs NIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs PAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs Canada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges22 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)22 mappings

Other IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)8 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)8 mappingsCISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsEBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsCFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsCSA CCM v4 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 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 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) has 39 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 12 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 11 overlapping controls (28% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Risk Management, where 10 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 39 total Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls, 11 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 28% coverage. The remaining 28 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

28 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Risk Management with 10 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 Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Risk Management (10 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.