IEEE 1686vsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)
See exactly how IEEE 1686 controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
IEEE 1686 maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 20% coverage across 9 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 44 IEEE 1686 controls identifies 35 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Access Control.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 44 controls analysed | 726 frameworks | 455K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 13 of 13 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 455K+ mappings across 726 frameworks.
IEEE 1686: Access Management(4 mappings)
IEEE 1686: Systems Security(1 mappings)
IEEE 1686: Incident Response & Recovery(6 mappings)
IEEE 1686: Supply Chain & Configuration(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other IEEE 1686 comparisons
Other IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 726 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 726 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (455K+)
- ✓ 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 IEEE 1686 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
IEEE 1686 has 44 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 32 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 9 overlapping controls (20% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Access Control, where 5 IEEE 1686 controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.
How many controls map between IEEE 1686 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
Of 44 total IEEE 1686 controls, 9 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 20% coverage. The remaining 35 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping IEEE 1686 to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
35 IEEE 1686 controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Access Control 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 IEEE 1686 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Access Control (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.