Skip to main content

PES-08.2: Fire Suppression Devices

PES 3 — Low Protect

Facility security mechanisms exist to utilize fire suppression devices/systems that provide automatic notification of any activation to organizational personnel and emergency responders.

Control Question: Does the organization utilize fire suppression devices/systems that provide automatic notification of any activation to organizational personnel and emergency responders?

General (9)
US (8)
Framework Mapping Values
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 PE-13(2)
US FedRAMP R4 PE-13(2)
US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) PE-13(2)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) PE-13(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) PE-13(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) PE-13(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) PE-13(2)
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 PE-13(2)
EMEA (3)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PS-05
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 18.17
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2704

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to utilize fire suppression devices/systems that provide automatic notification of any activation to organizational personnel and emergency responders.

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 fire suppression devices/systems that provide automatic notification of any activation to organizational personnel and emergency responders.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-08.2_A01 fire suppression systems that notify organization-defined personnel or roles automatically are employed.
  2. PES-08.2_A02 fire suppression systems that notify organization-defined emergency responders automatically are employed.
  3. PES-08.2_A03 personnel or roles to be notified in the event of a fire is/are defined.
  4. PES-08.2_A04 emergency responders to be notified in the event of a fire are defined.
  5. PES-08.2_A05 fire suppression systems that activate automatically are employed.

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.