Skip to main content

EMB-24: Proximity Sensor

EMB 9 — Critical Protect

Automated mechanisms exist to monitor physical proximity to robotic or autonomous platforms to reduce applied force or stop the operation when sensors indicate a potentially dangerous scenario.

Renumbered: Formerly PES-17 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to monitor physical proximity to robotic or autonomous platforms to reduce applied force or stop the operation when sensors indicate a potentially dangerous scenario?

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 — Well Defined

Embedded Technology (EMB) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with EMB domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with EMB domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An embedded systems team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain EMB domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of embedded technology operations (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with EMB domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to automatically monitor physical proximity to robotic or autonomous platforms to reduce applied force or stop the operation when sensors indicate a potentially dangerous scenario.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Assessment Objectives

  1. EMB-24_A01 physical proximity to robotic or autonomous platforms is monitored to reduce applied force or stop the operation when sensors indicate a potentially dangerous scenario.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Document and protect physical assets at remote/alternate sites

Small

  • Physical security policy for remote/alternate work sites

Medium

  • Formal remote site physical security policy
  • Controls commensurate with risks

Large

  • Enterprise remote site physical security program
  • Security assessments for remote locations

Enterprise

  • Enterprise remote site security program
  • Standardized physical security controls
  • Regular remote site audits

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.