Skip to main content

PES-04.1: Working in Secure Areas

PES 10 — Critical Protect

Physical security mechanisms exist to allow only authorized personnel access to secure areas.

Control Question: Does the organization allow only authorized personnel access to secure areas?

General (14)
Framework Mapping Values
CSA CCM 4 DCS-09 HRS-03
ISO 27002 2022 5.15 7.2 7.3 7.6
ISO 27017 2015 11.1.2 11.1.5
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 OP-3.2 PS-1.0 PS-1.2
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 PR.AC-P2
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.08.01 03.08.02 03.10.07.a.01 03.10.07.a.02 03.10.07.d
NIST 800-172 3.13.4e
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 9.3.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 9.3.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 9.3.1.1
SWIFT CSF 2023 3.1
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PES-04.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure PES-04.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats PES-04.1
US (10)
EMEA (4)
APAC (3)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-0164
APAC Japan ISMAP 11.1.2 11.1.5
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 8.5.6(e) 5.5.6(f)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.08.01 03.08.02 03.10.07.A.01 03.10.07.A.02 03.10.07.D

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to allow only authorized personnel access to secure areas.

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.
  • Facility security mechanisms exist to monitor physical access to business-critical information systems or sensitive/regulated data, in addition to the physical access monitoring of the facility.
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.
  • Administrative processes, physical controls and technologies ensure that only authorized personnel are allowed access to secure areas.
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.
  • Administrative processes, physical controls and technologies ensure that only authorized personnel are allowed access to secure areas.
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 allow only authorized personnel access to secure areas.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-04.1_A01 physical security access controls allow only authorized personnel access to secure areas.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Visitor escorts

Small

  • Visitor escorts

Medium

  • Visitor escorts

Large

  • Visitor escorts

Enterprise

  • Visitor escorts

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.