ISO/IEC 30111:2019vsIACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems
See exactly how ISO/IEC 30111:2019 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 30111:2019 maps to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems with 6% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 34 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls identifies 37 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 34 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
Clause 1-4: Introduction(2 mappings)
Clause 5: Vulnerability Handling Policy and Organization(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 30111:2019 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 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 30111:2019 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
ISO/IEC 30111:2019 has 34 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 2 overlapping controls (6% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process, where 5 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 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 30111:2019 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
Of 34 total ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls, 2 map directly to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls — representing 6% coverage. The remaining 37 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 30111:2019 to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
37 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 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 6: Vulnerability Handling Process with 5 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 30111:2019 and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?
The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process (5 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.