Skip to main content

PES-08.3: Automatic Fire Suppression

PES 5 — Medium Respond

Facility security mechanisms exist to employ an automatic fire suppression capability for critical systems when the facility is not staffed on a continuous basis.

Control Question: Does the organization employ an automatic fire suppression capability for critical systems when the facility is not staffed on a continuous basis?

General (9)
Framework Mapping Values
COBIT 2019 DSS01.04
GovRAMP Moderate PE-13(02)
GovRAMP High PE-13(02)
NIST 800-53 R4 PE-13(3)
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) PE-13(3)
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PE-13(3)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-13(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PE-13(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PE-13(2)
US (6)
Framework Mapping Values
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 PE-13(3)
US FedRAMP R4 PE-13(3)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) PE-13(3)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) PE-13(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) PE-13(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) PE-13(2)
EMEA (1)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PS-05

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to employ an automatic fire suppression capability for critical systems when the facility is not staffed on a continuous basis.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to employ an automatic fire suppression capability for critical systems when the facility is not staffed on a continuous basis.

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

See C|P-CMM3. There are no defined C|P-CMM4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to employ an automatic fire suppression capability for critical systems when the facility is not staffed on a continuous basis.

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 employ an automatic fire suppression capability for critical systems when the facility is not staffed on a continuous basis.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-08.3_A01 an automatic fire suppression capability is employed when the facility is not staffed on a continuous basis.

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.