NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security RequirementsvsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)
See exactly how NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 31% coverage across 11 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls identifies 24 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in System Protection and Communications.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 14 of 14 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
Access Control and Identification(1 mappings)
System Protection and Communications(5 mappings)
Audit, Assessment, and Monitoring(3 mappings)
Incident Response and Media Protection(4 mappings)
Awareness, Training, and Personnel(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements 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 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 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements has 35 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 11 overlapping controls (31% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in System Protection and Communications, where 12 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
Of 35 total NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls, 11 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 31% coverage. The remaining 24 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 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
24 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in System Protection and Communications with 12 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 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
The domain with the highest gap count is System Protection and Communications (12 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.