IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsSQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food
See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food with 25% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 6 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in IMO MSC-FAL Framework Alignment.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 3 of 3 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
IMO MSC-FAL Identify Function(2 mappings)
IMO MSC-FAL Recover Function(1 mappings)
A IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) to SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food controls your existing IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 25% in the header counts how many IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons
Other SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (309K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food?
IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 8 controls across its framework, while SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food covers 45 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (25% 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 SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food equivalent.
How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food?
Of 8 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 2 map directly to SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food controls, representing 25% coverage. The remaining 6 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 SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food?
6 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food. 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 SQF Code Edition 9 - Safe Quality Food?
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
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.