TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence SuppliersvsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)

See exactly how UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

8
Controls Mapped
13
Gaps Found
33%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 33% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 21 UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers controls identifies 14 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Objective B: Protecting Against Cyber Attack.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 21 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 8 of 8 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Objective A: Managing Security Risk(3 mappings)

A.2Risk Assessment
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment
A.4Supply Chain Risk Management
→IMO-CY-1.3Roles and Responsibilities
A.5Security Training and Awareness
→IMO-CY-2.2Awareness and Training

Objective B: Protecting Against Cyber Attack(1 mappings)

B.1Access Control
→IMO-CY-2.1Access Control

Objective C: Detecting Cyber Security Events(1 mappings)

C.1Security Monitoring
→IMO-CY-3.1Anomaly Detection

Cyber Risk Profiles and Assurance(1 mappings)

CRP-1Cyber Risk Profile Assessment
→IMO-CY-1.2Cyber Risk Assessment

Objective D: Minimising Impact of Incidents(2 mappings)

D.3Backup and Recovery2 targets
→IMO-CY-4.1Response Planning
→IMO-CY-5.1Recovery Planning

Related Comparisons

Other UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers comparisons

UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs CSA CCM v416 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange15 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs South Korea ISMS-P15 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs PAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments15 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs Canada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management15 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM)15 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges15 mappingsUK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)15 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 UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers has 21 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 12 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (33% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Objective B: Protecting Against Cyber Attack, where 5 UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.

How many controls map between UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

Of 21 total UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers controls, 7 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 33% coverage. The remaining 14 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

14 UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in Objective B: Protecting Against Cyber Attack with 5 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 UK Defence Standard 05-138 — Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Objective B: Protecting Against Cyber Attack (5 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.