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.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
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 | 692 frameworks | 306K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 306K+ mappings across 692 frameworks.
Government Surveillance(1 mappings)
Risk Management(1 mappings)
Production and Inspection(1 mappings)
Audit and Improvement(1 mappings)
A NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls your existing NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 50% in the header counts how many NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production 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 692 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 692 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (306K+)
- ✓ 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 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
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.