TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security RequirementsvsIACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems

See exactly how NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls map to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

20
Controls Mapped
15
Gaps Found
37%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements maps to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems with 37% coverage across 13 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls identifies 22 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in System Protection and Communications.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 20 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

System Protection and Communications(9 mappings)

3.10Physical and Environmental Protection2 targets
→E26-R5Access control
→E26-R7Physical security of systems
FEDRAMP-CM-1Configuration Management Policy
→E27-R1System hardening
FEDRAMP-CM-2Baseline Configuration
→E27-R1System hardening
FEDRAMP-CP-9System Backup2 targets
→E26-R15Recovery planning
→E26-R16Backup and restoration
FEDRAMP-SC-13Cryptographic Protection
→E26-R6Secure remote access
FEDRAMP-SC-28Protection of Information at Rest
→E26-R6Secure remote access
FEDRAMP-SC-8Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
→E26-R6Secure remote access

Audit, Assessment, and Monitoring(3 mappings)

3.11Risk Assessment
→E26-R3Risk assessment
3.3.1Audit Event Assessment2 targets
→E26-R11Logging and audit trail
→E27-R5Security event logging

Incident Response and Media Protection(6 mappings)

3.6Incident Response4 targets
→E26-R13Incident response plan
→E26-R15Recovery planning
→E26-R16Backup and restoration
→E27-R5Security event logging
3.6.1Incident Response Plan Assessment2 targets
→E26-R13Incident response plan
→E27-R5Security event logging

Access Control and Identification(2 mappings)

3.7Identification and Authentication
→E27-R3User authentication
3.7.1Multi-Factor Authentication Assessment
→E27-R3User authentication

Related Comparisons

Other NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements comparisons

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs UK Telecommunications (Security) Act 202121 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs PAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs Canada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs NRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Nuclear Facility Cybersecurity21 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange20 mappings

Other IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems comparisons

CSA CCM v4 vs IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems12 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems12 mappingsCISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines vs IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems12 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems12 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems11 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework 1.0 vs IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems11 mappingsFedRAMP Rev 5 vs IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems11 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems11 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 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 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements has 35 controls across its framework, while IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems covers 22 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 13 overlapping controls (37% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in System Protection and Communications, where 8 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls have no direct IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?

Of 35 total NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls, 13 map directly to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls — representing 37% coverage. The remaining 22 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?

22 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements 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 System Protection and Communications with 8 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 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 — Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?

The domain with the highest gap count is System Protection and Communications (8 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.