TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

17
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 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) 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 17 of 17 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
→38.1051(a)General Security Requirements for DCMs
→39.18(a)General Security Requirements for DCOs
IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities4 targets
→EIOPA-GL-10ICT Operations Security
→EIOPA-GL-19ICT Third-Party Risk Management
→EIOPA-GL-4ICT and Security Risks Within the Risk Management System
→TISAX-IS-03Third-Party Risk Management

Protect(4 mappings)

IMO-CY-2.1Access Control3 targets
→DSPF-INFO-3Information Access Controls
→EIOPA-GL-8Logical Security
→TISAX-IS-01ISMS Requirements
IMO-CY-2.2Awareness and Training
→EIOPA-GL-13Information Security Training and Awareness

Detect(1 mappings)

IMO-CY-3.1Anomaly Detection
→EIOPA-GL-11Security Monitoring

Respond(4 mappings)

IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning4 targets
→DSPF-INFO-1Information Classification
→EIOPA-GL-22Response and Recovery Plans
→EIOPA-GL-23Testing of Plans
→PSPF-INFO-2Security Classification System

Recover(2 mappings)

IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning2 targets
→EIOPA-GL-22Response and Recovery Plans
→EIOPA-GL-23Testing 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 EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)7 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 UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers7 mappings

Other EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) comparisons

Defence Security Principles Framework (DSPF) vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)22 mappingsCSA CCM v4 vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsCFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49) vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsProtective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) Release 2024 vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)21 mappingsEBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)20 mappingsFAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)20 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 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 12 controls across its framework, while EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) covers 50 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 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?

Of 12 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 7 map directly to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) 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 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?

5 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023). 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 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?

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.