PES-02.2: Dual Authorization for Physical Access

There is no evidence of a capability to enforce a "two-pers on rule" for physical access by requiring two authorized individuals with separate access cards, keys or PINs, to access highly-sensitive areas (e.g., safe, high-security cage, etc.).

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to enforce a "two-pers on rule" for physical access by requiring two authorized individuals with separate access cards, keys or PINs, to access highly-sensitive areas (e.g., safe, high-security cage, etc.).

Physical & Environmental Security (PES) efforts are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

• Physical access control is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
• IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for physical access control.
• Human Resources, or a similar function, maintains a current list of personnel with authorized access to organizational facilities and facilitates the implementation of physical access management controls.
• Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards).
• Physical controls, administrative processes and technologies are primarily designed and implemented for offices, rooms and facilities that focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
• A facilities maintenance team, or similar function, manages the operation of automated physical and environmental protection controls.

Physical & Environmental Security (PES) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Performs the centralized-management of physical security controls across the enterprise. o Maintains a current list of personnel with authorized access to organizational facilities and implements physical access management controls.

• A physical security team, or similar function:
• A facilities maintenance team, or similar function, manages the operation of environmental protection controls.
• Administrative processes exist to authorize physical access to facilities based on the position or role of the individual.
• Administrative processes and physical controls restrict unescorted access to facilities to personnel with required security clearances, formal access authorizations and validated the need for access.
• An Identity and Access Management (IAM), or similar function, centrally manages permissions and implements “least privileges” practices for the management of user, group and system accounts. IAM integrates into physical access using a holistic approach to physical and logical access.

See C|P-CMM3. There are no defined C|P-CMM4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to enforce a "two-pers on rule" for physical access by requiring two authorized individuals with separate access cards, keys or PINs, to access highly-sensitive areas (e.g., safe, high-security cage, etc.).

See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to enforce a "two-pers on rule" for physical access by requiring two authorized individuals with separate access cards, keys or PINs, to access highly-sensitive areas (e.g., safe, high-security cage, etc.).