IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board SystemsvsFATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule
See exactly how IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls map to FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems maps to FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule with 5% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 19 IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls identifies 18 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in IACS UR E26 Survey + Approval.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 19 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 1 of 1 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
IACS UR E26 Identify - Risk + Plan(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems comparisons
Other FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule 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 (330K+)
- ✓ 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 IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems and FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule?
IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems has 19 controls across its framework, while FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule covers 13 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 1 overlapping controls (5% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in IACS UR E26 Survey + Approval, where 1 IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls have no direct FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule equivalent.
How many controls map between IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems and FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule?
Of 19 total IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls, 1 map directly to FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule controls — representing 5% coverage. The remaining 18 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems to FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule?
18 IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls have no direct equivalent in FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule. The highest concentration of gaps is in IACS UR E26 Survey + Approval with 1 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 IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems and FATF Recommendation 16 - Virtual Asset Travel Rule?
The domain with the highest gap count is IACS UR E26 Survey + Approval (1 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.