Skip to main content

PES-11: Alternate Work Site

PES 8 — High Protect

Physical security mechanisms exist to utilize appropriate management, operational and technical controls at alternate work sites.

Control Question: Does the organization utilize appropriate management, operational and technical controls at alternate work sites?

General (21)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) A1.2
GovRAMP Low+ PE-17
GovRAMP Moderate PE-17
GovRAMP High PE-17
NIST 800-53 R4 PE-17
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) PE-17
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) PE-17
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PE-17
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) PE-17
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) PE-17
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay PE-17
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay PE-17
NIST 800-161 R1 PE-17
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 PE-17
NIST 800-171 R2 (source) 3.10.6
NIST 800-171A (source) 3.10.6[a] 3.10.6[b]
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.10.06.a 03.10.06.b
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.10.06.ODP[01] A.03.10.06.a A.03.10.06.b
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PES-11
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure PES-11
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats PES-11
US (13)
EMEA (3)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany C5 2020 PS-02
EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 18.21
EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2312
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 03.10.06.A 03.10.06.B

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to utilize appropriate management, operational and technical controls at alternate work sites.

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, physical controls and technologies are employed at alternate work sites to provide “equal protection” of physical and digital assets.
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, physical controls and technologies are employed at alternate work sites to provide “equal protection” of physical and digital assets.
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 appropriate management, operational and technical controls at alternate work sites.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-11_A01 alternate work sites allowed for use by employees are defined.
  2. PES-11_A02 security requirements to be employed at alternate work sites are defined.
  3. PES-11_A03 alternate work sites allowed for use by employees are determined.
  4. PES-11_A04 organization-defined security requirements are employed at alternate work sites.
  5. PES-11_A05 the effectiveness of controls at alternate work sites is assessed.
  6. PES-11_A06 a means for employees to communicate with cybersecurity / data privacy personnel in case of incidents is provided.
  7. PES-11_A07 safeguarding measures for sensitive / regulated data are defined for alternate work sites.
  8. PES-11_A08 safeguarding measures for sensitive / regulated data are enforced for alternate work sites.
  9. PES-11_A09 the following security requirements are employed at alternate work sites: <A.03.10.06.ODP[01]: security requirements>.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Formally-designated alternate work sites

Small

  • Formally-designated alternate work sites

Medium

  • Formally-designated alternate work sites

Large

  • Formally-designated alternate work sites

Enterprise

  • Formally-designated alternate work sites

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.