TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

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.

14
Controls Mapped
21
Gaps Found
31%
Coverage

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 | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 14 of 14 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Access Control and Identification(1 mappings)

3.1Food Safety and Quality Manual
→IMO-CY-5.2Lessons Learned

System Protection and Communications(5 mappings)

3.10Physical and Environmental Protection
→IMO-CY-2.1Access Control
FEDRAMP-CM-6Configuration Settings
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
FEDRAMP-CP-9System Backup3 targets
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
→IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning

Audit, Assessment, and Monitoring(3 mappings)

3.11Risk Assessment
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment
3.12Security Assessment and Monitoring
→IMO-CY-3.1Anomaly Detection
3.3Record Completion and Maintenance
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities

Incident Response and Media Protection(4 mappings)

3.16System and Services Acquisition
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
3.17Supply Chain Risk Management
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
3.6Incident Response2 targets
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
→IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning

Awareness, Training, and Personnel(1 mappings)

3.2.1Security Awareness Assessment
→IMO-CY-2.2Awareness and Training

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 IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons

TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)8 mappingsCISA ICS-CERT Advisories and Industrial Control Systems Security Guidelines vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsEBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsCFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsHKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsCSA CCM v4 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)7 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 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 12 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

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.