FedRAMP Rev 5vsIACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems
See exactly how FedRAMP Rev 5 controls map to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
FedRAMP Rev 5 maps to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems with 33% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 12 FedRAMP Rev 5 controls identifies 8 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in FedRAMP: OMB M-24-15 Modernization, FedRAMP 2.0 and Coordination with StateRAMP / GovRAMP.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 12 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 12 of 12 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
FedRAMP: Baseline Selection (Low, Moderate, High, LI-SaaS) and Control Overlay Parameters(1 mappings)
FedRAMP: Authorization Boundary, SSP, SAR, POA&M and System Documentation(7 mappings)
FedRAMP: Continuous Monitoring (ConMon) and Significant Change Requests(4 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other FedRAMP Rev 5 comparisons
Other IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between FedRAMP Rev 5 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
FedRAMP Rev 5 has 12 controls across its framework, while IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems covers 19 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (33% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in FedRAMP: OMB M-24-15 Modernization, FedRAMP 2.0 and Coordination with StateRAMP / GovRAMP, where 2 FedRAMP Rev 5 controls have no direct IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems equivalent.
How many controls map between FedRAMP Rev 5 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
Of 12 total FedRAMP Rev 5 controls, 4 map directly to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls — representing 33% coverage. The remaining 8 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping FedRAMP Rev 5 to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
8 FedRAMP Rev 5 controls have no direct equivalent in IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems. The highest concentration of gaps is in FedRAMP: OMB M-24-15 Modernization, FedRAMP 2.0 and Coordination with StateRAMP / GovRAMP with 2 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 FedRAMP Rev 5 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
The domain with the highest gap count is FedRAMP: OMB M-24-15 Modernization, FedRAMP 2.0 and Coordination with StateRAMP / GovRAMP (2 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
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.