ISO/IEC 27010:2015vsIACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems
See exactly how ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls map to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO/IEC 27010:2015 maps to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems with 21% coverage across 12 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls identifies 34 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 706 frameworks | 324K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 14 of 14 mapped controls across 9 domains. Sign up to explore all 324K+ mappings across 706 frameworks.
Physical(1 mappings)
Clause 11-13: Physical, Operations, and Communications Security(2 mappings)
Communications(1 mappings)
Continuity(2 mappings)
Clause 14-16: System Development, Supplier Relations, and Incident Management(2 mappings)
Membership(1 mappings)
Clause 7-8: Human Resources and Asset Management(1 mappings)
Access Control(2 mappings)
Clause 9-10: Access Control and Cryptography(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 27010:2015 comparisons
Other IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 706 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 706 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (324K+)
- ✓ 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 27010:2015 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
ISO/IEC 27010:2015 has 28 controls across its framework, while IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems covers 19 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 12 overlapping controls (21% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance, where 6 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls have no direct IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO/IEC 27010:2015 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
Of 28 total ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls, 12 map directly to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls — representing 21% coverage. The remaining 34 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 27010:2015 to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
34 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls have no direct equivalent in IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems. The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance with 6 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 27010:2015 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance (6 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.