TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4)vsASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls map to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

10
Controls Mapped
32
Gaps Found
10%
Coverage

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.4) maps to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents with 10% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 42 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls identifies 49 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Protect – IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4).

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 42 controls analysed | 868 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 10 of 10 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 868 frameworks.

Superseded batch representation – IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4)(10 mappings)

IMO-MSC-FAL-Detect-AnomalyDetection-OT-IT-Monitoring-Reporting-BridgeAlarmsIMO MSC-FAL Detect Function - Anomaly Detection + OT and IT System Monitoring + Bridge Alarms + Log Aggregation + Incident Reporting Channels + Crew Observation2 targets
→ASD37-29Host-based IDS/IPS (Very Good)
→ASD37-32Network-based IDS/IPS (Limited)
IMO-MSC-FAL-Protect-AccessControl-NetworkSegmentation-MalwareDefence-Patch-Awareness-DataSecurityIMO MSC-FAL Protect Function - Access Control + Network Segmentation + Malware Defence + Patch Management + Awareness Training + Data Security + Crew BYOD + Removable Media
→ASD37-37Personnel management (Very Good)
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
→ASD37-34Regular backups (Essential)
→ASD37-35Business continuity and disaster recovery plans (Very Good)
→ASD37-36System recovery capabilities (Very Good)
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 + CIRT4 targets
→ASD37-20Multi-factor authentication (Essential)
→ASD37-34Regular backups (Essential)
→ASD37-35Business continuity and disaster recovery plans (Very Good)
→ASD37-36System recovery capabilities (Very Good)
Coverage crosswalk

A IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents crosswalk, built to order

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls your existing IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) into ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents
Not published yet

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.

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents into IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4)
Not published yet

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.

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents (built to order)
$299
per framework pair, one time
  • 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 10% in the header counts how many IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents 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.4) comparisons

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) vs Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8)5 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) vs IEC 624435 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) vs API 11645 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) 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.4) vs OWASP ASVS4 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) vs MITRE D3FEND4 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) vs FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)4 mappingsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) vs DAMA-DMBOK2 - Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition)4 mappings

Other ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents comparisons

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents37 mappingsISO 27002:2022 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents37 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents37 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents37 mappingsCMMC 2.0 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents37 mappingsCIS Controls v8 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents37 mappingsNIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents36 mappingsFedRAMP High vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents36 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

Cross-framework mappings across 868 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 868 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$149/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.4) and ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) has 42 controls across its framework, while ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents covers 37 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (10% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Protect – IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4), where 10 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls have no direct ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) and ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

Of 42 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls, 4 map directly to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents controls, representing 10% coverage. The remaining 49 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.4) to ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

49 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls have no direct equivalent in ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents. The highest concentration of gaps is in Protect – IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) with 10 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.4) and ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents?

The domain with the highest gap count is Protect – IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) (10 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.