TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsEBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

14
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
58%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) with 58% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 12 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 5 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Recover.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 12 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 14 of 14 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Identify(6 mappings)

IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment2 targets
→EBA-GL-3.3.2Risk Identification
→EBA-GL-3.3.3Risk Assessment
IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities4 targets
→EBA-GL-3.2.1ICT Governance
→EBA-GL-3.3.1Risk Management Framework
→EBA-GL-3.4.1Information Security Policy
→EBA-GL-3.6.1ICT Project Management

Protect(2 mappings)

IMO-CY-2.1Access Control
→EBA-GL-3.4.2Logical Security
IMO-CY-2.2Awareness and Training
→EBA-GL-3.4.7Information Security Training

Detect(1 mappings)

IMO-CY-3.1Anomaly Detection
→EBA-GL-3.4.5Security Monitoring

Respond(3 mappings)

IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning3 targets
→EBA-GL-3.5.1ICT Operations Management
→EBA-GL-3.7.4Response and Recovery Plans
→EBA-GL-3.7.5Testing of Plans

Recover(2 mappings)

IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning2 targets
→EBA-GL-3.7.4Response and Recovery Plans
→EBA-GL-3.7.5Testing of Plans

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 Requirements8 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange8 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs CISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines7 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49)7 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)7 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs CSA CCM v47 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)7 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers7 mappings

Other EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) comparisons

CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49) vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)19 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)19 mappingsDefence Security Principles Framework (DSPF) vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)18 mappingsProtective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) Release 2024 vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)18 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)18 mappingsCSA CCM v4 vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)17 mappingsPAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)17 mappingsCanada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)17 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 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 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 12 controls across its framework, while EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) covers 26 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (58% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Recover, where 1 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)?

Of 12 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 7 map directly to EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) controls — representing 58% coverage. The remaining 5 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 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)?

5 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07). The highest concentration of gaps is in Recover 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 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Recover (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.