TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

AWS Well-Architected Security PillarvsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

5
Controls Mapped
84
Gaps Found
4%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 4% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 89 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls identifies 85 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Identity & Access Management.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 89 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 5 of 5 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Cloud Security Overview(2 mappings)

AWS-WA-01Shared responsibility model definition
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Identify-AssetInventory-ThreatsVulnerabilities-CyberRiskAssessment-RolesResponsibilitiesIMO MSC-FAL Identify Function - OT/IT Asset Inventory + Threats + Vulnerabilities + Cyber Risk Assessment + Roles and Responsibilities + Crew + CSO + DPA
AWS-WA-03Cloud risk assessment
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Identify-AssetInventory-ThreatsVulnerabilities-CyberRiskAssessment-RolesResponsibilitiesIMO MSC-FAL Identify Function - OT/IT Asset Inventory + Threats + Vulnerabilities + Cyber Risk Assessment + Roles and Responsibilities + Crew + CSO + DPA

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Data Protection in Cloud(2 mappings)

AWS-WA-14Data backup and recovery in cloud2 targets
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Recover-BackupRestore-ContinuityOfNavigation-LessonsLearned-DrillsIMO MSC-FAL Recover Function - Backup and Restore + Continuity of Navigation + Continuity of Cargo Operations + Continuity of Propulsion + Lessons Learned + Drills + Resilience
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Respond-IncidentResponse-Communication-FlagState-PortAuthority-CIRT-USCGNVICIMO MSC-FAL Respond Function - Incident Response Plan + Containment + Communication + Flag State + Port Authority + USCG NVIC + Class Society Notification + CIRT

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar: Cloud Operations & Monitoring(1 mappings)

AWS-WA-21Cloud security monitoring and logging
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Detect-AnomalyDetection-OT-IT-Monitoring-Reporting-BridgeAlarmsIMO MSC-FAL Detect Function - Anomaly Detection + OT and IT System Monitoring + Bridge Alarms + Log Aggregation + Incident Reporting Channels + Crew Observation

Related Comparisons

Other AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar comparisons

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs NIST SP 800-14619 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs NIST SP 800-14519 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs NIST SP 800-14419 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs MTCS (Singapore)19 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs ISMAP (Japan)19 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs Azure Security Benchmark19 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs NIST SP 800-19019 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs ISO 2701719 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)5 mappingsIEC 62443 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsAPI 1164 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsIAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsOWASP ASVS vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsMITRE D3FEND vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsDAMA-DMBOK2 - Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar has 89 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (4% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Identity & Access Management, where 15 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 89 total AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls, 4 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 4% coverage. The remaining 85 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

85 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Identity & Access Management with 15 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Identity & Access Management (15 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.