TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Iowa Consumer Data Protection ActvsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

2
Controls Mapped
6
Gaps Found
25%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 25% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act controls identifies 6 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Iowa CDPA Coordination.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 2 of 2 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Iowa CDPA Controller Obligations(1 mappings)

ICDPA-Controller-PrivacyNotice-PurposeLimitation-DataMinimisation-Sale-Disclosure-Transparency-LawfulBasisIowa CDPA Controller Obligations - Privacy Notice + Purpose Limitation + Data Minimisation + Sale Disclosure Statement + Targeted Advertising Disclosure + Privacy by Design + Lawful Processing
→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

Iowa CDPA Sensitive Data + Children(1 mappings)

ICDPA-SensitiveData-Notice-OptOut-NotConsent-Children-COPPA-Alignment-De-IdentificationIowa CDPA Sensitive Data + Notice + Opt-Out (NOT Consent unlike VCDPA) + Children Under 13 + COPPA Alignment + De-Identification Standards + Heightened Risk Awareness
→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 + DPA

Related Comparisons

Other Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act comparisons

Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act vs Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)7 mappingsIowa Consumer Data Protection Act vs Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos Personales (LOPDP)7 mappingsIowa Consumer Data Protection Act vs Law No. 172-13 on the Protection of Personal Data7 mappingsIowa Consumer Data Protection Act vs Bahrain PDPL7 mappingsIowa Consumer Data Protection Act vs Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data (UAE PDPL)7 mappingsIowa Consumer Data Protection Act vs Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018)7 mappingsIowa Consumer Data Protection Act vs Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act7 mappingsIowa Consumer Data Protection Act vs APPI7 mappings

Other IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsIEC 62443 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsAPI 1164 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsIAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsOWASP ASVS vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsMITRE D3FEND vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsDAMA-DMBOK2 - Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/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 Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act has 8 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (25% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Iowa CDPA Coordination, where 1 Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 8 total Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act controls, 2 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) 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 Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

6 Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Iowa CDPA Coordination 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 Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Iowa CDPA Coordination (1 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.