Skip to main content

PES-03.3: Physical Access Logs

PES 6 — Medium Protect

Physical access control mechanisms generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.

Control Question: Does the organization generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points?

General (34)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC6.4-POF4
CSA CCM 4 LOG-12
GovRAMP Low PE-08
GovRAMP Low+ PE-08
GovRAMP Moderate PE-08
GovRAMP High PE-08
ISO 27002 2022 7.2
ISO 27017 2015 11.1.2
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 OP-3.2 PS-1.1 PS-1.2
NIST 800-53 R4 PE-8
NIST 800-53 R4 (low) PE-8
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) PE-8
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PE-8
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-8
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) PE-8
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) PE-8
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PE-8
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay PE-8
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay PE-8
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PE-8
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.10.4 NFO-PE-8
NIST 800-171A (source) 3.10.4
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.10.02.a 03.10.07.b
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.10.07.b
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) DE.CM-02
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 9.2.1 9.2.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 9.2.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 9.2.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) 9.2.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 9.2.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 9.2.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational PES-03.3
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure PES-03.3
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats PES-03.3
US (21)
EMEA (4)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 13.3.2(d)
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 18.5
EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 2-14-3-3
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 1500
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Japan ISMAP 11.1.2
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.10.02.A 03.10.07.B

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Physical & Environmental Security (PES) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Physical access control is decentralized.
  • Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs).
  • Human Resources, or a similar function, maintains a current list of personnel and facilitates the implementation of physical access management controls.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

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 controls and technologies are configured to generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.
Level 3 — Well Defined

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.
  • Physical controls and technologies are configured to generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Physical & Environmental Security (PES) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
  • Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
  • Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
  • Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
  • Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
  • Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving

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 generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-03.3_A01 physical access audit logs for entry or exit points are maintained.
  2. PES-03.3_A02 time period for which to maintain visitor access records for the facility where the system resides is defined.
  3. PES-03.3_A03 visitor access records for the facility where the system resides are maintained for time period.
  4. PES-03.3_A04 the frequency at which to review visitor access records is defined.
  5. PES-03.3_A05 visitor access records are reviewed frequently.
  6. PES-03.3_A06 personnel to whom visitor access records anomalies are reported to is/are defined.
  7. PES-03.3_A07 visitor access records anomalies are reported to personnel.
  8. PES-03.3_A08 audit logs of physical access are maintained.

Evidence Requirements

E-PES-02 Visitor Logbook

Documented evidence of a visitor management and logging visitor activities.

Physical Security

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Visitor logbook
  • iLobby (https://goilobby.com)
  • The Receptionist (https://thereceptionist.com)
  • LobbyGuard (http://lobbyguard.com)

Small

  • Visitor logbook
  • iLobby (https://goilobby.com)
  • The Receptionist (https://thereceptionist.com)
  • LobbyGuard (http://lobbyguard.com)

Medium

  • Visitor logbook
  • iLobby (https://goilobby.com)
  • The Receptionist (https://thereceptionist.com)
  • LobbyGuard (http://lobbyguard.com)

Large

  • Staffed lobby (receptionist)
  • Visitor logbook

Enterprise

  • Staffed lobby (receptionist)
  • Visitor logbook

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.