TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsNIST SP 800-39

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to NIST SP 800-39. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

7
Controls Mapped
5
Gaps Found
25%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to NIST SP 800-39 with 25% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 12 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 9 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Protect.

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

Control Mappings

Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Identify(6 mappings)

IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment3 targets
→NIST39-06Risk identification methods
→NIST39-09Risk scenario development
→NIST39-10Risk interdependency analysis
IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities3 targets
→NIST39-11Risk treatment options and selection
→NIST39-14Risk transfer and insurance
→NIST39-18Risk register maintenance

Recover(1 mappings)

IMO-CY-5.2Lessons Learned
→NIST39-19Continuous improvement of risk processes

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 800-39 comparisons

AS9100D — Aerospace Quality Management System vs NIST SP 800-397 mappingsISO/IEC 27003:2017 vs NIST SP 800-397 mappingsNIST SP 800-37 vs NIST SP 800-397 mappingsISO 31000 vs NIST SP 800-397 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs NIST SP 800-397 mappingsISO 27005 vs NIST SP 800-397 mappingsSouth Korea ISMS-P vs NIST SP 800-397 mappingsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs NIST SP 800-397 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 800-39?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 12 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-39 covers 20 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 3 overlapping controls (25% 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 800-39 equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and NIST SP 800-39?

Of 12 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 3 map directly to NIST SP 800-39 controls — representing 25% coverage. The remaining 9 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 800-39?

9 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-39. 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 800-39?

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.