TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsBRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

5
Controls Mapped
3
Gaps Found
25%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 with 25% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 6 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in IMO MSC-FAL Framework Alignment.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 5 of 5 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

IMO MSC-FAL Identify Function(3 mappings)

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 + DPA3 targets
→1.2Operating System Privileged Account Control
→1.3Virtualisation Platform Protection
→3.3Configure Data Access Control Lists

IMO MSC-FAL Recover Function(2 mappings)

IMO-MSC-FAL-Recover-BackupRestore-ContinuityOfNavigation-LessonsLearned-DrillsIMO MSC-FAL Recover Function - Backup and Restore + Continuity of Navigation + Continuity of Cargo Operations + Continuity of Propulsion + Lessons Learned + Drills + Resilience2 targets
→1.1SWIFT Environment Protection
→3.1Physical Security

Related Comparisons

Other IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements5 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs IEC 624435 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs API 11645 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)5 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs OWASP ASVS4 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs MITRE D3FEND4 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs DAMA-DMBOK2 - Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition)4 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs NIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)4 mappings

Other BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 comparisons

PIC/S Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products vs BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 98 mappingsFDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) vs BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 98 mappingsAS9100D - Aerospace Quality Management System vs BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 98 mappingsISO/IEC 27003:2017 vs BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 98 mappingsISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories vs BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 98 mappingsISO 15189:2022 - Medical Laboratories Requirements for Quality and Competence vs BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 98 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 98 mappingsICH E6(R3) - Good Clinical Practice vs BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 97 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 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 8 controls across its framework, while BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 covers 39 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (25% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in IMO MSC-FAL Framework Alignment, where 1 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9?

Of 8 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 2 map directly to BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 controls — representing 25% coverage. The remaining 6 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) to BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9?

6 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9. The highest concentration of gaps is in IMO MSC-FAL Framework Alignment 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 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9?

The domain with the highest gap count is IMO MSC-FAL Framework Alignment (1 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.