PES-08: Fire Protection
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)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| US CERT RMM 1.2 | EC:SG2.SP1 EC:SG4.SP1 EC:SG4.SP2 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R4 | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (low) | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (LI-SaaS) | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | PE-13 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) | PE-13 |
| US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 | PE-13 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 1 | PE-13 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | PE-13 |
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
- PES-08_A01 fire detection systems are employed.
- PES-08_A02 employed fire detection systems are supported by an independent energy source.
- PES-08_A03 employed fire detection systems are maintained.
- PES-08_A04 fire suppression systems are employed.
- PES-08_A05 employed fire suppression systems are supported by an independent energy source.
- 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