PES-06.3: Restrict Unescorted Access
Physical access control mechanisms exist to restrict unescorted access to facilities to personnel with required security clearances, formal access authorizations and validate the need for access.
Control Question: Does the organization restrict unescorted access to facilities to personnel with required security clearances, formal access authorizations and validate the need for access?
General (15)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | PR.AC-P2 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | PE-2(3) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | PE-2(3) |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) | PE-2(3) |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | 3.10.3 |
| NIST 800-171A (source) | 3.10.3[a] 3.10.3[b] |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.10.07.c |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.10.07.c[01] A.03.10.07.c[02] |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 9.3.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 9.3.2 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 9.3.2 |
| SWIFT CSF 2023 | 3.1 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | PES-06.3 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | PES-06.3 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | PES-06.3 |
US (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 1 (source) | PE.L1-B.1.IX |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 2 (source) | PE.L2-3.10.3 |
| US CMMC 2.0 Level 3 (source) | PE.L2-3.10.3 |
| US FAR 52.204-21 | 52.204-21(b)(1)(ix) |
| US NERC CIP 2024 (source) | CIP-004-7 4.1.2 CIP-006-6 1.2 CIP-006-6 1.3 CIP-006-6 2.1 |
EMEA (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 2-13-1-7 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 | TPC-48 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-0164 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 | 9.4.7.C.01 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 | 03.10.07.C |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
There is no evidence of a capability to restrict unescorted access to facilities to personnel with required security clearances, formal access authorizations and validate the need for access.
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.
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.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
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 restrict unescorted access to facilities to personnel with required security clearances, formal access authorizations and validate the need for access.
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 restrict unescorted access to facilities to personnel with required security clearances, formal access authorizations and validate the need for access.
Assessment Objectives
- PES-06.3_A01 visitor activity is controlled.
- PES-06.3_A02 unescorted access to the facility where the system resides is restricted.
- PES-06.3_A03 visitor activity is monitored.
- PES-06.3_A04 visitors are escorted.
- PES-06.3_A05 physical access authorizations for unescorted access to the facility where the system resides are defined.