Skip to main content

PES-10: Delivery & Removal

PES 8 — High Protect

Physical security mechanisms exist to isolate information processing facilities from points such as delivery and loading areas and other points to avoid unauthorized access.

Control Question: Does the organization isolate information processing facilities from points such as delivery and loading areas and other points to avoid unauthorized access?

General (28)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) A1.2
GovRAMP Low PE-16
GovRAMP Low+ PE-16
GovRAMP Moderate PE-16
GovRAMP High PE-16
ISO 27002 2022 7.2
ISO 27017 2015 11.1.6
MPA Content Security Program 5.1 OP-1.0
NIST 800-53 R4 PE-16
NIST 800-53 R4 (low) PE-16
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) PE-16
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PE-16
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-16
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) PE-16
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) PE-16
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PE-16
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay PE-16
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay PE-16
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PE-16
NIST 800-161 R1 PE-16
NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline PE-16
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 PE-16
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) NFO-PE-16
TISAX ISA 6 3.1.3 5.3.3
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PES-10
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational PES-10
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure PES-10
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats PES-10
US (18)
EMEA (1)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 18.20
APAC (2)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Japan ISMAP 11.1.6
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 5.5.6(f)

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to isolate information processing facilities from points such as delivery and loading areas and other points to avoid unauthorized access.

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.
  • Administrative processes and physical controls isolate information processing facilities from points such as delivery and loading areas and other points to avoid unauthorized access.
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.
  • Administrative processes and physical controls isolate information processing facilities from points such as delivery and loading areas and other points to avoid unauthorized 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 isolate information processing facilities from points such as delivery and loading areas and other points to avoid unauthorized access.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-10_A01 types of system components to be authorized and controlled when entering the facility are defined.
  2. PES-10_A02 types of system components to be authorized and controlled when exiting the facility are defined.
  3. PES-10_A03 types of system components are authorized and controlled when entering the facility.
  4. PES-10_A04 types of system components are authorized and controlled when exiting the facility.
  5. PES-10_A05 records of the system components are maintained.

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.