Framework overlap

Does Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) cover BIMCO Cyber Security?

You hold Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) and have been told to do BIMCO Cyber Security. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

73% of BIMCO Cyber Security you already have

Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) already covers about 73% of BIMCO Cyber Security, leaving 7 of 26 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 19 New work 7

No control in Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) maps directly to one in BIMCO Cyber Security. Everything counted as covered is covered because both map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather than a lookup.

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) reaches these. This is the list to scope.

BIMCO-1.2
Senior management involvement
BIMCO-1.3
Roles, responsibilities and tasks
BIMCO-1.5
Plans and procedures
BIMCO-10.5
Investigating cyber incidents
BIMCO-3.7
System and software maintenance
BIMCO-7.1
Defence in depth and in breadth
BIMCO-8.2
Malware detection
Show the 19 you already have
BIMCO-1.4
Differences between IT and OT systems
BIMCO-1.8
Relationship with vendors and other external parties
BIMCO-10.2
The four phases of incident response
BIMCO-10.3
Recovery plan
BIMCO-10.4
Data recovery capability
BIMCO-2.1
Threat actors
BIMCO-2.2
Types of cyber threats
BIMCO-3.1
Common vulnerabilities
BIMCO-3.3
Typical vulnerable systems
BIMCO-3.4
Ship to shore interface
BIMCO-3.6
Remote access
BIMCO-4
Assessing the likelihood
BIMCO-5.1
Impact assessment (CIA model)
BIMCO-6.2
The four phases of a risk assessment
BIMCO-6.3
Third party risk assessments
BIMCO-7.2
Technical protection measures
BIMCO-7.3
Procedural protection measures
BIMCO-8.1
Detection, logging, blocking and alerts
BIMCO-9
Establish contingency plans

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair ยท Today's edition