Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsNIS2 Directive Implementing Acts

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

1
Controls Mapped
7
Gaps Found
12%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts with 12% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 7 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in IMO MSC-FAL Framework Alignment.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 1 of 1 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

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
NIS2I-6Access Control, Asset Management, and Physical Security

Related Comparisons

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

Other NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts comparisons

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 (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 →

What are the key differences between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 8 controls across its framework, while NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 1 overlapping controls (12% 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 NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts?

Of 8 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 1 map directly to NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts controls — representing 12% coverage. The remaining 7 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 NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts?

7 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts. 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 NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts?

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.

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.