TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsFFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

7
Controls Mapped
1
Gaps Found
50%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) with 50% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 4 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 7 of 7 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

IMO MSC-FAL Detect Function(1 mappings)

IMO-MSC-FAL-Detect-AnomalyDetection-OT-IT-Monitoring-Reporting-BridgeAlarmsIMO MSC-FAL Detect Function - Anomaly Detection + OT and IT System Monitoring + Bridge Alarms + Log Aggregation + Incident Reporting Channels + Crew Observation
→CAT-D3-2Detective controls

IMO MSC-FAL Identify Function(2 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 + DPA2 targets
→CAT-D1-2Risk management
→CAT-ML-2Evolving

IMO MSC-FAL Protect Function(3 mappings)

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 Media3 targets
→CAT-D1-4Training and culture
→CAT-D3-1Preventative controls
→CAT-D4-3Third-party access controls

IMO MSC-FAL Respond Function(1 mappings)

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
→CAT-D5-4Resilience planning and testing

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 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) comparisons

HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)12 mappingsO-RAN WG11 Security Specification vs FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)11 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)10 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)10 mappingsOWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) vs FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)10 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)9 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)9 mappingsGhana Cybersecurity Act vs FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)9 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 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 8 controls across its framework, while FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) covers 49 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (50% 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 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)?

Of 8 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 4 map directly to FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) controls — representing 50% coverage. The remaining 4 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 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)?

4 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT). 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 FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)?

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.