TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsNATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

4
Controls Mapped
4
Gaps Found
38%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production with 38% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 5 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 4 of 4 mapped controls across 3 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
→AQAP2110-2Government Quality Assurance Representative (GQAR) Authority and Access

IMO MSC-FAL Recover Function(2 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 + Resilience2 targets
→AQAP2110-7Production, Special Processes, Inspection, Testing, and Records
→AQAP2110-8Internal Audit, Management Review, Corrective Action, CofC, and Continual Improvement

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
→AQAP2110-5Risk and Opportunity Management

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 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production comparisons

ICH Q10 - Pharmaceutical Quality System vs NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production6 mappingsICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC) vs NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production5 mappingsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production5 mappingsGLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) Standard v6 vs NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production5 mappingsGerman Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) vs NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production5 mappingsFDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) vs NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production5 mappingsBRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 vs NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production5 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production5 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 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 8 controls across its framework, while NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 3 overlapping controls (38% 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 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production?

Of 8 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 3 map directly to NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls — representing 38% 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 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production?

5 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production. 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 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production?

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.