TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

14
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
67%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements with 67% coverage across 8 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 12 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 4 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Respond.

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

Control Mappings

Showing 14 of 14 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Identify(6 mappings)

IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment
→3.11Risk Assessment
IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities5 targets
→3.16System and Services Acquisition
→3.17Supply Chain Risk Management
→3.3Record Completion and Maintenance
→FEDRAMP-CM-6Configuration Settings
→FEDRAMP-CP-9System Backup

Protect(2 mappings)

IMO-CY-2.1Access Control
→3.10Physical and Environmental Protection
IMO-CY-2.2Awareness and Training
→3.2.1Security Awareness Assessment

Detect(1 mappings)

IMO-CY-3.1Anomaly Detection
→3.12Security Assessment and Monitoring

Respond(2 mappings)

IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning2 targets
→3.6Incident Response
→FEDRAMP-CP-9System Backup

Recover(3 mappings)

IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning2 targets
→3.6Incident Response
→FEDRAMP-CP-9System Backup
IMO-CY-5.2Lessons Learned
→3.1Food Safety and Quality Manual

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 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 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) vs UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers7 mappings

Other NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements comparisons

UK Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsPAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsCanada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsNew Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsMARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsNRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Nuclear Facility Cybersecurity vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements20 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 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 12 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (67% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Respond, where 1 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

Of 12 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 8 map directly to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls — representing 67% 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 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

4 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements. The highest concentration of gaps is in Respond 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 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

The domain with the highest gap count is Respond (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.