TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO 22000vsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how ISO 22000 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
38
Gaps Found
5%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO 22000 maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 5% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 40 ISO 22000 controls identifies 38 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Operation.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 40 controls analysed | 715 frameworks | 418K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 2 of 2 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 418K+ mappings across 715 frameworks.

ISO 22000: OH&S Policy & Planning(1 mappings)

ISO22000-02Hazard identification and risk assessment
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment

ISO 22000: Performance & Improvement(1 mappings)

ISO22000-15Corrective actions and lessons learned
→IMO-CY-5.2Lessons Learned

Related Comparisons

Other ISO 22000 comparisons

ISO 22000 vs ISO 450013 mappingsISO 22000 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 52 mappingsISO 22000 vs German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG)2 mappingsISO 22000 vs South Korea ISMS-P2 mappingsISO 22000 vs NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems2 mappingsISO 22000 vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production2 mappingsISO 22000 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements2 mappingsISO 22000 vs ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC)2 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)8 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 - Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsSouth Korea ISMS-P vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsOman National Cybersecurity Framework vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsTISAX - Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsIEEE 1686 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)6 mappingsAPI 1164 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)6 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 715 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 715 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (418K+)
  • ✓ 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 ISO 22000 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

ISO 22000 has 40 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 32 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (5% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Operation, where 7 ISO 22000 controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO 22000 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 40 total ISO 22000 controls, 2 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 5% coverage. The remaining 38 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 22000 to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

38 ISO 22000 controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Operation with 7 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 ISO 22000 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Operation (7 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.