Skip to main content

PES-09.1: Monitoring with Alarms / Notifications

PES 8 — High Detect

Facility security mechanisms exist to trigger an alarm or notification of temperature and humidity changes that be potentially harmful to personnel or equipment.

Control Question: Does the organization trigger an alarm or notification of temperature and humidity changes that be potentially harmful to personnel or equipment?

General (9)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) A1.2 A1.2-POF2 A1.2-POF4
COBIT 2019 DSS01.04
GovRAMP Moderate PE-14(02)
GovRAMP High PE-14(02)
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 PS-3.1
NIST 800-53 R4 PE-14(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-14(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) PE-14(2)
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PES-09.1
US (6)
Framework Mapping Values
US FedRAMP R4 PE-14(2)
US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) PE-14(2)
US FedRAMP R4 (high) PE-14(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (source) PE-14(2)
US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) PE-14(2)
US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 PE-14(2)
EMEA (2)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PS-06 PS-07
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 18.18

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to trigger an alarm or notification of temperature and humidity changes that be potentially harmful to personnel or equipment.

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 trigger an alarm or notification of temperature and humidity changes that be potentially harmful to personnel or equipment.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-09.1_A01 personnel or roles to be notified by environmental control monitoring when environmental changes are potentially harmful to personnel or equipment is/are defined.
  2. PES-09.1_A02 environmental control monitoring is employed.
  3. PES-09.1_A03 personnel or roles are notified when changes are potentially harmful to personnel or equipment.

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.