IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)vsVietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14)
See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls map to Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14). 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 Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14) with 12% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls identifies 7 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in IMO MSC-FAL Framework Alignment.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 706 frameworks | 324K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 2 of 2 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 324K+ mappings across 706 frameworks.
IMO MSC-FAL Identify Function(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons
Other Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 706 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 706 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (324K+)
- ✓ 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 Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14)?
IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) has 8 controls across its framework, while Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14) covers 4 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 1 overlapping controls (12% 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 Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14) equivalent.
How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) and Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14)?
Of 8 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls, 1 map directly to Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14) controls — representing 12% coverage. The remaining 7 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 Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14)?
7 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls have no direct equivalent in Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14). 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 Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14)?
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.