TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)vsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

17
Controls Mapped
33
Gaps Found
30%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 30% coverage across 15 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 50 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) controls identifies 35 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Information Security.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 50 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Information Security(11 mappings)

38.1051(a)General Security Requirements for DCMs
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment
39.18(a)General Security Requirements for DCOs
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment
DSPF-INFO-1Information Classification
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
DSPF-INFO-3Information Access Controls
→IMO-CY-2.1Access Control
EIOPA-GL-10ICT Operations Security
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
EIOPA-GL-11Security Monitoring
→IMO-CY-3.1Anomaly Detection
EIOPA-GL-13Information Security Training and Awareness
→IMO-CY-2.2Awareness and Training
EIOPA-GL-8Logical Security
→IMO-CY-2.1Access Control
PSPF-INFO-2Security Classification System
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
TISAX-IS-01ISMS Requirements
→IMO-CY-2.1Access Control
TISAX-IS-03Third-Party Risk Management
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities

ICT Operations and Change Management(1 mappings)

EIOPA-GL-19ICT Third-Party Risk Management
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities

Business Continuity Management(4 mappings)

EIOPA-GL-22Response and Recovery Plans2 targets
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
→IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning
EIOPA-GL-23Testing of Plans2 targets
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
→IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning

Proportionality and Governance(1 mappings)

EIOPA-GL-4ICT and Security Risks Within the Risk Management System
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities

Related Comparisons

Other EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) comparisons

EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs Defence Security Principles Framework (DSPF)22 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs CSA CCM v421 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49)21 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) Release 202421 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)21 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange21 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)20 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs FAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation20 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 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers 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 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) has 50 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 12 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 15 overlapping controls (30% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Information Security, where 22 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 50 total EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) controls, 15 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 30% coverage. The remaining 35 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

35 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Information Security with 22 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 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Information Security (22 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.