ISO/IEC 27003:2017vsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)
See exactly how ISO/IEC 27003:2017 controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO/IEC 27003:2017 maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 3% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 72 ISO/IEC 27003:2017 controls identifies 70 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Operation (Clause 8).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 72 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.
Improvement (Clause 10)(1 mappings)
Operation (Clause 8)(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 27003:2017 comparisons
Other IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 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 ISO/IEC 27003:2017 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
ISO/IEC 27003:2017 has 72 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 (3% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Operation (Clause 8), where 9 ISO/IEC 27003:2017 controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO/IEC 27003:2017 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
Of 72 total ISO/IEC 27003:2017 controls, 2 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 3% coverage. The remaining 70 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 27003:2017 to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
70 ISO/IEC 27003:2017 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 (Clause 8) with 9 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/IEC 27003:2017 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Operation (Clause 8) (9 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.