TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems

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

7
Controls Mapped
1
Gaps Found
38%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems 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 7 of 7 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

IMO MSC-FAL Identify Function(2 mappings)

IMO-MSC-FAL-Identify-AssetInventory-ThreatsVulnerabilities-CyberRiskAssessment-RolesResponsibilitiesIMO MSC-FAL Identify Function - OT/IT Asset Inventory + Threats + Vulnerabilities + Cyber Risk Assessment + Roles and Responsibilities + Crew + CSO + DPA2 targets
→NISTSP34-1Contingency Planning Policy, Programme, and Plan Coordination
→NISTSP34-2Business Impact Analysis (BIA): Critical Resources, Recovery Priorities

IMO MSC-FAL Recover Function(3 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 + Resilience3 targets
→NISTSP34-2Business Impact Analysis (BIA): Critical Resources, Recovery Priorities
→NISTSP34-4Information System Contingency Plan (ISCP) Development
→NISTSP34-5Plan Testing, Training, and Exercises (TTE)

IMO MSC-FAL Respond Function(2 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 + CIRT2 targets
→NISTSP34-2Business Impact Analysis (BIA): Critical Resources, Recovery Priorities
→NISTSP34-4Information System Contingency Plan (ISCP) Development

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 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems comparisons

AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems4 mappingsISO 20000-1 vs NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems4 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems4 mappingsOWASP ASVS vs NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems4 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems4 mappingsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar vs NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems4 mappingsISO/IEC 27011:2024 vs NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems4 mappingsFedRAMP Rev 5 vs NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems4 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 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 8 controls across its framework, while NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems 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 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems?

Of 8 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 3 map directly to NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems 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 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems?

5 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems. 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 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems?

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.