TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information SystemsvsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

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

7
Controls Mapped
1
Gaps Found
50%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 50% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems controls identifies 4 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Impact-Aligned Recovery + RMF Integration.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Contingency Planning Policy and Programme(1 mappings)

NISTSP34-1Contingency Planning Policy, Programme, and Plan Coordination
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Identify-AssetInventory-ThreatsVulnerabilities-CyberRiskAssessment-RolesResponsibilitiesIMO MSC-FAL Identify Function - OT/IT Asset Inventory + Threats + Vulnerabilities + Cyber Risk Assessment + Roles and Responsibilities + Crew + CSO + DPA

Business Impact Analysis(3 mappings)

NISTSP34-2Business Impact Analysis (BIA): Critical Resources, Recovery Priorities3 targets
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Identify-AssetInventory-ThreatsVulnerabilities-CyberRiskAssessment-RolesResponsibilitiesIMO MSC-FAL Identify Function - OT/IT Asset Inventory + Threats + Vulnerabilities + Cyber Risk Assessment + Roles and Responsibilities + Crew + CSO + DPA
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Recover-BackupRestore-ContinuityOfNavigation-LessonsLearned-DrillsIMO MSC-FAL Recover Function - Backup and Restore + Continuity of Navigation + Continuity of Cargo Operations + Continuity of Propulsion + Lessons Learned + Drills + Resilience
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Respond-IncidentResponse-Communication-FlagState-PortAuthority-CIRT-USCGNVICIMO MSC-FAL Respond Function - Incident Response Plan + Containment + Communication + Flag State + Port Authority + USCG NVIC + Class Society Notification + CIRT

ISCP Development(2 mappings)

NISTSP34-4Information System Contingency Plan (ISCP) Development2 targets
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Recover-BackupRestore-ContinuityOfNavigation-LessonsLearned-DrillsIMO MSC-FAL Recover Function - Backup and Restore + Continuity of Navigation + Continuity of Cargo Operations + Continuity of Propulsion + Lessons Learned + Drills + Resilience
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Respond-IncidentResponse-Communication-FlagState-PortAuthority-CIRT-USCGNVICIMO MSC-FAL Respond Function - Incident Response Plan + Containment + Communication + Flag State + Port Authority + USCG NVIC + Class Society Notification + CIRT

Testing, Training, Exercises(1 mappings)

NISTSP34-5Plan Testing, Training, and Exercises (TTE)
→IMO-MSC-FAL-Recover-BackupRestore-ContinuityOfNavigation-LessonsLearned-DrillsIMO MSC-FAL Recover Function - Backup and Restore + Continuity of Navigation + Continuity of Cargo Operations + Continuity of Propulsion + Lessons Learned + Drills + Resilience

Related Comparisons

Other NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems comparisons

NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements4 mappingsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems vs OWASP ASVS4 mappingsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems vs Azure Security Benchmark4 mappingsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems vs AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar4 mappingsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems vs ISO/IEC 27011:20244 mappingsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems vs FedRAMP Rev 54 mappingsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems vs GLBA4 mappingsNIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)4 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)5 mappingsIEC 62443 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsAPI 1164 vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsIAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)5 mappingsOWASP ASVS vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsMITRE D3FEND vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsDAMA-DMBOK2 - Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) vs IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)4 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 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 Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems 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 Impact-Aligned Recovery + RMF Integration, where 1 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 8 total NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems 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 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

4 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Impact-Aligned Recovery + RMF Integration 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 NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Impact-Aligned Recovery + RMF Integration (1 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.