TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 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
30
Gaps Found
11%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 11% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 34 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Device Security.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 719 frameworks | 428K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 5 of 5 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 428K+ mappings across 719 frameworks.

Account Security(1 mappings)

CPG-1.CUnique Credentials
→IMO-CY-2.2Awareness and Training

Governance & Training(1 mappings)

CPG-4.CBasic Cybersecurity Training
→IMO-CY-2.2Awareness and Training

Governance and Training(1 mappings)

CPG-4.CBasic Cybersecurity Training
→IMO-CY-2.2Awareness and Training

Supply Chain and Third Party(1 mappings)

CPG-6.BSupply Chain Incident Reporting
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities

Network Segmentation(1 mappings)

CPG-8.ANetwork Segmentation
→IMO-CY-2.1Access Control

Related Comparisons

Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs Azure Security Benchmark14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs OWASP ASVS14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs TISAX - Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs PAS 1192-5:2015 - Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs MARS-E - Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)13 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 mappingsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 - Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsSouth Korea ISMS-P vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsOman National Cybersecurity Framework vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsTISAX - Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsIEEE 1686 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)6 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 719 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 719 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (428K+)
  • ✓ 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 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 35 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 32 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (11% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 8 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 35 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 5 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 11% coverage. The remaining 34 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

34 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Device Security with 8 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 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Device Security (8 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.