Skip to main content

PES-07: Supporting Utilities

PES 9 — Critical Protect

Facility security mechanisms exist to protect power equipment and power cabling for the system from damage and destruction.

Control Question: Does the organization protect power equipment and power cabling for the system from damage and destruction?

General (24)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) A1.2
COBIT 2019 DSS01.04
CSA CCM 4 DCS-12 DCS-14
ENISA 2.0 SO10
GovRAMP Moderate PE-09
GovRAMP High PE-09
ISO 27002 2022 7.11 7.12
ISO 27017 2015 11.2.2 11.2.3
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 PS-3.1
NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) 4.D(2)(j)
NIST 800-53 R4 PE-9
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) PE-9
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PE-9
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-9
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) PE-9
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PE-9
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay PE-9
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PE-9
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.10.08
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) PR.IR-02
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PES-07
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational PES-07
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure PES-07
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats PES-07
US (9)
EMEA (4)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 3.4.3(35)
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 13.1.2(d)
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PS-01 PS-06
EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 8.1.3 [MP.IF.3] 8.1.4 [MP.IF.4]
APAC (3)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Japan ISMAP 11.2.2 11.2.3
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 8.3.3.C.01 8.3.4.C.01 8.3.4.C.02 8.3.5.C.01
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 8.5.2 8.5.2(a) 8.5.2(b) 8.5.2(c)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.10.08

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to protect power equipment and power cabling for the system from damage and destruction.

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.
  • Administrative processes and physical controls address system component location within the facility to minimize potential damage from physical and environmental hazards and to minimize the opportunity for unauthorized access.
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 protect power equipment and power cabling for the system from damage and destruction.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-07_A01 power equipment for the system is protected from damage and destruction.
  2. PES-07_A02 power cabling for the system is protected from damage and destruction.

Evidence Requirements

E-PES-01 Environmental Monitoring

Documented evidence of environmental monitoring (e.g., water leaks, temperature, humidity, etc.)

Physical Security

Technology Recommendations

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.