FISMAvsIACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems
See exactly how FISMA 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:
FISMA maps to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems with 25% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 12 FISMA controls identifies 9 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in FISMA: Coordination with FedRAMP, EO 14028, OMB Memoranda and Status.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 12 controls analysed | 723 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 13 of 13 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 723 frameworks.
FISMA: Federal Agency Responsibilities (CIO, CISO, Program, Reporting)(4 mappings)
FISMA: National Security Systems Exclusion + CIRCIA + Zero Trust(3 mappings)
FISMA: Operationalisation via NIST 800-53 RMF + 800-171 + FIPS 199/200(6 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other FISMA 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 723 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 723 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 FISMA and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
FISMA 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 3 overlapping controls (25% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in FISMA: Coordination with FedRAMP, EO 14028, OMB Memoranda and Status, where 5 FISMA controls have no direct IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems equivalent.
How many controls map between FISMA and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
Of 12 total FISMA controls, 3 map directly to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls — representing 25% coverage. The remaining 9 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping FISMA to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
9 FISMA 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 FISMA: Coordination with FedRAMP, EO 14028, OMB Memoranda and Status 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 FISMA and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
The domain with the highest gap count is FISMA: Coordination with FedRAMP, EO 14028, OMB Memoranda and Status (5 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.