Skip to main content

PES-07.3: Emergency Power

PES 8 — High Protect

Facility security mechanisms exist to supply alternate power, capable of maintaining minimally-required operational capability, in the event of an extended loss of the primary power source.

Control Question: Does the organization supply alternate power, capable of maintaining minimally-required operational capability, in the event of an extended loss of the primary power source?

General (17)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) A1.2
COBIT 2019 DSS01.04
GovRAMP Moderate PE-11
GovRAMP High PE-11 PE-11(01)
IEC 62443-4-2 2019 CR 7.5 (11.7)
ISO 27002 2022 7.11
ISO 27017 2015 11.2.2
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 PS-3.1
NIST 800-53 R4 PE-11 PE-11(1) PE-11(2)
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) PE-11
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PE-11
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-11 PE-11(1) PE-11(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) PE-11
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PE-11 PE-11(1)
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay PE-11
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PE-11 PE-11(1)
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PES-07.3
US (9)
Framework Mapping Values
US CERT RMM 1.2 EC:SG4.SP1 EC:SG4.SP2 TM:SG5.SP1
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 PE-11
US FedRAMP R4 PE-11 PE-11(1)
US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) PE-11
US FedRAMP R4 (high) PE-11 PE-11(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) PE-11 PE-11(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) PE-11
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) PE-11 PE-11(1)
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 PE-11
EMEA (4)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 13.1.2(a)
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PS-01 PS-06
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 18.14 18.15
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2704
APAC (2)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-1123
APAC Japan ISMAP 11.2.2

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to supply alternate power, capable of maintaining minimally-required operational capability, in the event of an extended loss of the primary power source.

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

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 supply alternate power, capable of maintaining minimally-required operational capability, in the event of an extended loss of the primary power source.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-07.3_A01 an uninterruptible power supply is provided to facilitate selected organization-defined values in the event of a primary power source loss.
  2. PES-07.3_A02 an alternate power supply provided for the system is activated upon organization-defined criteria.
  3. PES-07.3_A03 the alternate power supply provided for the system can maintain minimally required operational capability in the event of an extended loss of the primary power source.

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.