PES-07.3: Emergency Power
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
- 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.
- PES-07.3_A02 an alternate power supply provided for the system is activated upon organization-defined criteria.
- 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.