TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and ProductionvsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

4
Controls Mapped
4
Gaps Found
50%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 50% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls identifies 4 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Supply Chain Control.

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

Control Mappings

Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Government Surveillance(1 mappings)

AQAP2110-2Government Quality Assurance Representative (GQAR) Authority and Access
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Detect-AnomalyDetection-OT-IT-Monitoring-Reporting-BridgeAlarmsIMO MSC-FAL Detect Function - Anomaly Detection + OT and IT System Monitoring + Bridge Alarms + Log Aggregation + Incident Reporting Channels + Crew Observation

Risk Management(1 mappings)

AQAP2110-5Risk and Opportunity Management
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Respond-IncidentResponse-Communication-FlagState-PortAuthority-CIRT-USCGNVICIMO MSC-FAL Respond Function - Incident Response Plan + Containment + Communication + Flag State + Port Authority + USCG NVIC + Class Society Notification + CIRT

Production and Inspection(1 mappings)

AQAP2110-7Production, Special Processes, Inspection, Testing, and Records
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Recover-BackupRestore-ContinuityOfNavigation-LessonsLearned-DrillsIMO MSC-FAL Recover Function - Backup and Restore + Continuity of Navigation + Continuity of Cargo Operations + Continuity of Propulsion + Lessons Learned + Drills + Resilience

Audit and Improvement(1 mappings)

AQAP2110-8Internal Audit, Management Review, Corrective Action, CofC, and Continual Improvement
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Recover-BackupRestore-ContinuityOfNavigation-LessonsLearned-DrillsIMO MSC-FAL Recover Function - Backup and Restore + Continuity of Navigation + Continuity of Cargo Operations + Continuity of Propulsion + Lessons Learned + Drills + Resilience

Related Comparisons

Other NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production comparisons

NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs ICH Q10 - Pharmaceutical Quality System6 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs ICAO Annex 17 - Aviation Security (AVSEC)5 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production5 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) Standard v65 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG)5 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR)5 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 95 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements5 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 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production 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 4 overlapping controls (50% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Supply Chain Control, where 1 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 8 total NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls, 4 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 50% coverage. The remaining 4 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

4 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Supply Chain Control 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 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Supply Chain Control (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.