IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsUK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework
See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) maps to UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework with 9% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 32 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 29 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Protect.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 32 controls analysed | 719 frameworks | 428K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 5 of 5 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 428K+ mappings across 719 frameworks.
Identify(1 mappings)
Respond(3 mappings)
Recover(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons
Other UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 719 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 719 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (428K+)
- ✓ 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 UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework?
IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 32 controls across its framework, while UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework covers 40 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 3 overlapping controls (9% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Protect, where 8 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework equivalent.
How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework?
Of 32 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 3 map directly to UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework controls — representing 9% coverage. The remaining 29 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 UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework?
29 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework. The highest concentration of gaps is in Protect with 8 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 UK FCA/PRA Operational Resilience Framework?
The domain with the highest gap count is Protect (8 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.