Skip to main content

PES-08: Fire Protection

PES 7 — High Protect

Facility security mechanisms exist to utilize and maintain fire suppression and detection devices/systems for the system that are supported by an independent energy source.

Control Question: Does the organization utilize and maintain fire suppression and detection devices/systems for the system that are supported by an independent energy source?

General (25)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) A1.2
COBIT 2019 DSS01.04
CSA CCM 4 DCS-13
GovRAMP Low PE-13
GovRAMP Low+ PE-13
GovRAMP Moderate PE-13
GovRAMP High PE-13
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-13
NIST 800-53 R4 (low) PE-13
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) PE-13
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PE-13
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-13
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) PE-13
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) PE-13
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PE-13
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay PE-13
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay PE-13
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PE-13
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) PR.IR-02
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PES-08
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational PES-08
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure PES-08
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats PES-08
US (15)
EMEA (4)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 3.4.3(35)
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PS-01 PS-05
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 18.17
EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 8.1.5 [MP.IF.5]
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 8.5.3 8.5.4

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to Facility security utilize and maintain fire suppression and detection devices/systems for the system that are supported by an independent energy 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 Facility security utilize and maintain fire suppression and detection devices/systems for the system that are supported by an independent energy source.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-08_A01 fire detection systems are employed.
  2. PES-08_A02 employed fire detection systems are supported by an independent energy source.
  3. PES-08_A03 employed fire detection systems are maintained.
  4. PES-08_A04 fire suppression systems are employed.
  5. PES-08_A05 employed fire suppression systems are supported by an independent energy source.
  6. PES-08_A06 employed fire suppression systems are maintained.

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.