TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4)vsIAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)

See exactly how IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls map to IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

8
Controls Mapped
34
Gaps Found
12%
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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) with 12% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 42 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls identifies 48 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 8 of 8 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Superseded batch representation – IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4)(8 mappings)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 Observation
→IAEA-NSS17-Detect-Monitor-Logging-IR-Recovery-ExercisesIAEA NSS-17 - Detection + Monitoring + Logging + Incident Response + Recovery + Computer Security Exercises
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 + DPA4 targets
→IAEA-NSS17-AccessControl-OT-IT-Authentication-AuthorizationIAEA NSS-17 - Access Control + Authentication + Authorization + IAM + Privileged Access for OT and IT
→IAEA-NSS17-Architecture-Zones-DefenceInDepth-SegmentationIAEA NSS-17 - Computer Security Architecture + Zone Model + Defence in Depth + Network Segmentation + Boundary
→IAEA-NSS17-GradedApproach-SecurityLevels-Risk-DBTIAEA NSS-17 - Graded Approach + Computer Security Levels + Risk-Informed Methodology + Threat Assessment + DBT Alignment + Consequence Analysis
→IAEA-NSS17-SupplyChain-ThirdParty-OEM-TrustIAEA NSS-17 - Supply Chain + Third Party + OEM + Vendor Security + Trustworthy Components
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
→IAEA-NSS17-AccessControl-OT-IT-Authentication-AuthorizationIAEA NSS-17 - Access Control + Authentication + Authorization + IAM + Privileged Access for OT and IT
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 + Resilience
→IAEA-NSS17-Detect-Monitor-Logging-IR-Recovery-ExercisesIAEA NSS-17 - Detection + Monitoring + Logging + Incident Response + Recovery + Computer Security Exercises
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 + CIRT
→IAEA-NSS17-Detect-Monitor-Logging-IR-Recovery-ExercisesIAEA NSS-17 - Detection + Monitoring + Logging + Incident Response + Recovery + Computer Security Exercises
Coverage crosswalk

A IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) to IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) crosswalk, built to order

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) 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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)
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.

IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) 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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) (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 12% 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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) 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 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 ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents4 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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) comparisons

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)8 mappingsISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)7 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)7 mappingsOWASP Top 10:2025 vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)6 mappingsOWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)6 mappingsISO/IEC 27011:2024 vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)6 mappingsNIST SP 800-146 vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)6 mappingsNIST SP 800-145 vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)6 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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?

IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) has 42 controls across its framework, while IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (12% 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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) equivalent.

How many controls map between IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) and IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?

Of 42 total IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls, 5 map directly to IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) controls, representing 12% coverage. The remaining 48 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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?

48 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.4) controls have no direct equivalent in IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1). 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 IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)?

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.