TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning GuidevsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

10
Controls Mapped
7
Gaps Found
35%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 35% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 17 NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide controls identifies 11 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Contingency Strategy Development.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 17 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 10 of 10 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Contingency Planning Fundamentals(6 mappings)

CP34-FND-01Contingency Planning Policy
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
CP34-FND-02Business Impact Analysis (BIA)2 targets
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
→IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning
CP34-FND-04Recovery Prioritization3 targets
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
→IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning

Contingency Plan Development(3 mappings)

CP34-PLN-03Recovery Operations2 targets
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
→IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning
CP34-PLN-05Roles and Responsibilities
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities

Plan Testing, Training and Maintenance(1 mappings)

CP34-TST-02Test Documentation and After-Action Reports
→IMO-CY-5.2Lessons Learned

Related Comparisons

Other NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide comparisons

NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements7 mappingsNIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide vs South Korea ISMS-P7 mappingsNIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange7 mappingsNIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide vs DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition)6 mappingsNIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide vs BSIMM6 mappingsNIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide vs Azure Security Benchmark6 mappingsNIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide vs OWASP ASVS6 mappingsNIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide vs CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49)6 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)8 mappingsTISAX — 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 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 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide has 17 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 12 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (35% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Contingency Strategy Development, where 4 NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 17 total NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide controls, 6 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 35% coverage. The remaining 11 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

11 NIST SP 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Contingency Strategy Development with 4 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 800-34 Rev 1 — Contingency Planning Guide and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Contingency Strategy Development (4 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.