TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsISO 22000

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to ISO 22000. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

2
Controls Mapped
10
Gaps Found
17%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to ISO 22000 with 17% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 12 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 10 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Protect.

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

Control Mappings

Showing 2 of 2 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Identify(1 mappings)

IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment
→ISO22000-02Hazard identification and risk assessment

Recover(1 mappings)

IMO-CY-5.2Lessons Learned
→ISO22000-15Corrective actions and lessons learned

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 EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)7 mappings

Other ISO 22000 comparisons

ISO 45001 vs ISO 220003 mappingsGLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) Standard v6 vs ISO 220002 mappingsSouth Korea ISMS-P vs ISO 220002 mappingsNIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide vs ISO 220002 mappingsIATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs ISO 220002 mappingsILO Nursing Personnel Convention C149 (1977) vs ISO 220002 mappings6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6, Directive (EU) 2018/1673) vs ISO 220002 mappingsISO 8000 — Data Quality vs ISO 220002 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 ISO 22000?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 12 controls across its framework, while ISO 22000 covers 15 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (17% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Protect, where 3 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct ISO 22000 equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and ISO 22000?

Of 12 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 2 map directly to ISO 22000 controls — representing 17% coverage. The remaining 10 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 ISO 22000?

10 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 22000. The highest concentration of gaps is in Protect with 3 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 ISO 22000?

The domain with the highest gap count is Protect (3 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.