TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Azure Security BenchmarkvsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how Azure Security Benchmark 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
49
Gaps Found
7%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Azure Security Benchmark maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 7% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 54 Azure Security Benchmark controls identifies 50 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Identity Management.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 54 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.

Azure Security Benchmark: Cloud Governance(2 mappings)

ASB-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
ASB-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

Azure Security Benchmark: Data Protection in Cloud(2 mappings)

ASB-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

Azure Security Benchmark: Cloud Operations & Monitoring(1 mappings)

ASB-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 Azure Security Benchmark comparisons

Azure Security Benchmark vs NIST SP 800-14620 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs NIST SP 800-14520 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs NIST SP 800-14420 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs MTCS (Singapore)20 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs ISMAP (Japan)20 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs ISO 2701720 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs NIST SP 800-19020 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs ISO 2701820 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 Azure Security Benchmark and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Azure Security Benchmark has 54 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 (7% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Identity Management, where 5 Azure Security Benchmark controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

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

Of 54 total Azure Security Benchmark controls, 4 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 7% coverage. The remaining 50 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

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

50 Azure Security Benchmark 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 Management with 5 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 Azure Security Benchmark and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Identity Management (5 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.