IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board SystemsvsIACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships
See exactly how IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls map to IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems maps to IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships with 14% coverage across 14 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 102 IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls identifies 104 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in UR E27 section 4: security capabilities – IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 102 controls analysed | 868 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 868 frameworks.
UR E26 section 4: requirements (identify, protect, detect, respond, recover) – IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems(16 mappings)
UR E26 sections 5 and 6: demonstration of compliance and exclusions – IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems(1 mappings)
A IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems to IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships controls your existing IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 14% in the header counts how many IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems comparisons
Other IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 868 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 868 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
- ✓ 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 IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships?
IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems has 102 controls across its framework, while IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships covers 14 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 14 overlapping controls (14% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in UR E27 section 4: security capabilities – IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems, where 43 IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls have no direct IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships equivalent.
How many controls map between IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems and IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships?
Of 102 total IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls, 14 map directly to IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships controls, representing 14% coverage. The remaining 104 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 IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships?
104 IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls have no direct equivalent in IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships. The highest concentration of gaps is in UR E27 section 4: security capabilities – IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems with 43 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 IACS Recommendation No. 194 - Cybersecurity Controls for Existing Ships?
The domain with the highest gap count is UR E27 section 4: security capabilities – IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems (43 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.