TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsMITRE D3FEND

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to MITRE D3FEND. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

4
Controls Mapped
4
Gaps Found
50%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to MITRE D3FEND 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 | 700 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 700 frameworks.

IMO MSC-FAL Identify Function(1 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 + DPA
→MITRE-D3FEND-Scope-MITRE-NSA-2021-CC-BY-4-0-Countermeasure-Knowledge-Graph-Companion-ATTACK-OntologyMITRE D3FEND Scope + MITRE + NSA 2021 + CC BY 4.0 + Countermeasure Knowledge Graph + Companion to ATT&CK + Ontology

IMO MSC-FAL Protect Function(1 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 Media
→MITRE-D3FEND-Harden-Tactic-Application-Credential-Message-Platform-Hardening-MFA-Encryption-Secure-BootMITRE D3FEND Harden Tactic + Application + Credential + Message + Platform + MFA + Encryption + Secure Boot

IMO MSC-FAL Recover Function(1 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 + Resilience
→MITRE-D3FEND-Evict-Tactic-Credential-Process-Eviction-Containment-Incident-Response-RecoveryMITRE D3FEND Evict Tactic + Credential + Process Eviction + Containment + Incident Response + Recovery

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
→MITRE-D3FEND-Evict-Tactic-Credential-Process-Eviction-Containment-Incident-Response-RecoveryMITRE D3FEND Evict Tactic + Credential + Process Eviction + Containment + Incident Response + Recovery

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 Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8)5 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 UK Defence Standard 05-138 - Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers5 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 MITRE D3FEND comparisons

ISMAP (Japan) vs MITRE D3FEND6 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs MITRE D3FEND6 mappingsOWASP ASVS vs MITRE D3FEND6 mappingsMITRE ATT&CK vs MITRE D3FEND6 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs MITRE D3FEND6 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 - Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs MITRE D3FEND5 mappingsIACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems vs MITRE D3FEND5 mappingsISO/IEC 27011:2024 vs MITRE D3FEND5 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 700 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 700 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (330K+)
  • ✓ 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 MITRE D3FEND?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 8 controls across its framework, while MITRE D3FEND covers 8 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 MITRE D3FEND equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and MITRE D3FEND?

Of 8 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 4 map directly to MITRE D3FEND 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 MITRE D3FEND?

4 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in MITRE D3FEND. 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 MITRE D3FEND?

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.