TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsNIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

10
Controls Mapped
2
Gaps Found
33%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide with 33% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 12 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 8 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Protect.

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

Control Mappings

Showing 10 of 10 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Identify(3 mappings)

IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities3 targets
→CP34-FND-01Contingency Planning Policy
→CP34-FND-04Recovery Prioritization
→CP34-PLN-05Roles and Responsibilities

Respond(3 mappings)

IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning3 targets
→CP34-FND-02Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
→CP34-FND-04Recovery Prioritization
→CP34-PLN-03Recovery Operations

Recover(4 mappings)

IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning3 targets
→CP34-FND-02Business Impact Analysis (BIA)
→CP34-FND-04Recovery Prioritization
→CP34-PLN-03Recovery Operations
IMO-CY-5.2Lessons Learned
→CP34-TST-02Test Documentation and After-Action Reports

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 NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide comparisons

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide7 mappingsSouth Korea ISMS-P vs NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide7 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide7 mappingsDAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) vs NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide6 mappingsBSIMM vs NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide6 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide6 mappingsOWASP ASVS vs NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide6 mappingsCFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49) vs NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide6 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 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 12 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide covers 17 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (33% 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 NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide?

Of 12 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 4 map directly to NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide controls — representing 33% coverage. The remaining 8 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 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide?

8 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide. 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 NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide?

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.