Skip to main content

PES-05.1: Intrusion Alarms / Surveillance Equipment

PES 9 — Critical Detect

Physical access control mechanisms exist to monitor physical intrusion alarms and surveillance equipment.

Control Question: Does the organization monitor physical intrusion alarms and surveillance equipment?

General (25)
Framework Mapping Values
CSA CCM 4 DCS-10
CSA IoT SCF 2 PHY-01
GovRAMP Moderate PE-06(01)
GovRAMP High PE-06(01)
ISO 27002 2022 7.4
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 PS-1.3 PS-1.4 PS-3.0
NIST 800-53 R4 PE-6(1)
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) PE-6(1)
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PE-6(1)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-6(1)
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) PE-6(1)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PE-6(1)
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay PE-6(1)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PE-6(1)
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.10.2 NFO-PE-6(1)
NIST 800-171A (source) 3.10.2[c] 3.10.2[d]
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.10.02.a 03.10.02.b
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 9.2.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 9.2.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 9.2.1.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 9.2.1.1
TISAX ISA 6 8.1.6
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PES-05.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure PES-05.1
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats PES-05.1
US (12)
Framework Mapping Values
US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) PE.L2-3.10.2
US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) PE.L2-3.10.2
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 PE-6(1)
US FedRAMP R4 PE-6(1)
US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) PE-6(1)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) PE-6(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) PE-6(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) PE-6(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) PE-6(1)
US IRS 1075 PE-6(1)
US NERC CIP 2024 (source) CIP-006-6 1.5 CIP-006-6 1.7
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 PE-6(1)
EMEA (5)
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC China Privacy Law 26
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.10.02.A 03.10.02.B

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to monitor physical intrusion alarms and surveillance equipment.

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 monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
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.
  • A physical security team, or similar function, monitors physical intrusion alarms and surveillance equipment.
  • Physical controls and technologies are configured to monitor for, detect and respond to physical security incidents.
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

Physical & Environmental Security (PES) efforts are “world-class” capabilities that leverage predictive analysis (e.g., machine learning, AI, etc.). In addition to CMM Level 4 criteria, CMM Level 5 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions.
  • Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-05.1_A01 physical access to the facility where the system resides is monitored using physical intrusion alarms.
  2. PES-05.1_A02 physical access to the facility where the system resides is monitored using physical surveillance equipment.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Physical alarm systems
  • Video surveillance systems

Small

  • Physical alarm systems
  • Video surveillance systems

Medium

  • Physical alarm systems
  • Video surveillance systems

Large

  • Physical alarm systems
  • Video surveillance systems

Enterprise

  • Physical alarm systems
  • Video surveillance systems

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.