Skip to main content

PES-08.1: Fire Detection Devices

PES 9 — Critical Detect

Facility security mechanisms exist to utilize and maintain fire detection devices/systems that activate automatically and notify organizational personnel and emergency responders in the event of a fire.

Control Question: Does the organization utilize and maintain fire detection devices/systems that activate automatically and notify organizational personnel and emergency responders in the event of a fire?

General (12)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) A1.2
COBIT 2019 DSS01.04
GovRAMP High PE-13(01)
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 PS-3.1
NIST 800-53 R4 PE-13(1)
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PE-13(1)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-13(1)
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) PE-13(1)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PE-13(1)
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay PE-13(1)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PE-13(1)
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PES-08.1
US (6)
Framework Mapping Values
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 PE-13(1)
US FedRAMP R4 PE-13(1)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) PE-13(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) PE-13(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) PE-13(1)
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) PE-13(1)
EMEA (2)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PS-05
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 18.17
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 utilize and maintain fire detection devices/systems that activate automatically and notify organizational personnel and emergency responders in the event of a fire.

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 utilize and maintain fire detection devices/systems that activate automatically and notify organizational personnel and emergency responders in the event of a fire.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-08.1_A01 personnel or roles to be notified in the event of a fire is/are defined.
  2. PES-08.1_A02 emergency responders to be notified in the event of a fire are defined.
  3. PES-08.1_A03 fire detection systems that activate automatically are employed in the event of a fire.
  4. PES-08.1_A04 fire detection systems that notify organization-defined personnel or roles automatically are employed in the event of a fire.
  5. PES-08.1_A05 fire detection systems that notify organization-defined emergency responders automatically are employed in the event of a fire.

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.