TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication SecurityvsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

4
Controls Mapped
30
Gaps Found
12%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 12% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 34 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls identifies 30 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Parts 10-11: Architecture and XML Security.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 34 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Parts 12-14: DER, Resilience, and Monitoring(2 mappings)

62351-12Resilience and security recommendations for DER
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Respond-IncidentResponse-Communication-FlagState-PortAuthority-CIRT-USCGNVICIMO MSC-FAL Respond Function - Incident Response Plan + Containment + Communication + Flag State + Port Authority + USCG NVIC + Class Society Notification + CIRT
62351-13Cyber-physical generation and storage resilience
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Respond-IncidentResponse-Communication-FlagState-PortAuthority-CIRT-USCGNVICIMO MSC-FAL Respond Function - Incident Response Plan + Containment + Communication + Flag State + Port Authority + USCG NVIC + Class Society Notification + CIRT

Parts 1-2: Introduction and Glossary(1 mappings)

62351-2Glossary of terms
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Identify-AssetInventory-ThreatsVulnerabilities-CyberRiskAssessment-RolesResponsibilitiesIMO MSC-FAL Identify Function - OT/IT Asset Inventory + Threats + Vulnerabilities + Cyber Risk Assessment + Roles and Responsibilities + Crew + CSO + DPA

Parts 7-9: Network Management, Access Control, and Key Management(1 mappings)

62351-8Role-based access control (RBAC)
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Protect-AccessControl-NetworkSegmentation-MalwareDefence-Patch-Awareness-DataSecurityIMO MSC-FAL Protect Function - Access Control + Network Segmentation + Malware Defence + Patch Management + Awareness Training + Data Security + Crew BYOD + Removable Media

Related Comparisons

Other IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security comparisons

IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security vs O-RAN WG11 Security Specification6 mappingsIEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security vs NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security6 mappingsIEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security vs MTCS (Singapore)6 mappingsIEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)6 mappingsIEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security vs NIST Privacy Framework5 mappingsIEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)5 mappingsIEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security vs ISO 27001:20225 mappingsIEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security vs ISO 20000-15 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)5 mappingsIEC 62443 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsAPI 1164 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsIAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsOWASP ASVS vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsMITRE D3FEND vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsDAMA-DMBOK2 - Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 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 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security has 34 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (12% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Parts 10-11: Architecture and XML Security, where 2 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 34 total IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls, 4 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 12% coverage. The remaining 30 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

30 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Parts 10-11: Architecture and XML Security 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 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Parts 10-11: Architecture and XML Security (2 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.