PES-12: Access To Critical Systems
Physical access control mechanisms exist to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive and/or regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
Renumbered: Formerly PES-03.4 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, PES-12 was Equipment Siting & Protection. That control is now PES-16.
Control Question: Does the organization enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive and/or regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility?
General (19)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) | S7.2-POF5 |
| COBIT 2019 | DSS05.05 |
| GovRAMP | PE-03(01) |
| GovRAMP High | PE-03(01) |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | PS-1.0 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | PE-3(1) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | PE-03(01) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | PE-03(01) |
| NIST SP 800-66 R2 | 164.310(b) 164.310(c) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | PE-03(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | PE-03(01) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | PE-3(1) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | PE-3(1) |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | PE-3(1) |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | 3.10.1 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.10.07.a.01 03.10.07.a.02 |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.10.07.a.01 A.03.10.07.a.02 |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | PR.AC-P2 |
| TISAX ISA 6.0.3 | 5.3.4 |
US (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | PE-3-IS.2 |
| USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 | TM:SG4.SP1 |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 1 | PE.L1-B.1.VIII |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 2 | PEL2.-3.10.1 |
| USA Federal FAR 52.204-21 | 52.204-21(b)(1)(viii) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | PE-03(01) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Security Rule NIST SP 800-66 R2 | § 164.310(b) § 164.310(c) |
| USA Federal HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 | § 164.310(b) § 164.310(c) |
EMEA (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | PS-04.01B.4 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 21.1(g)(ii) |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 2024 | 1502 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L1 2024 | 1502 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L2 2024 | 1502 |
| EMEA UK DEFSTAN 05-138 - L3 2024 | 1502 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 2-13-1-5 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 | VII.B.TPC-46 |
APAC (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0813 ISM-1053 ISM-1074 ISM-1530 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | PR.AA.S10 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 | HHSP10 HML10 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP09 |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 8.3.3.C.01 8.3.4.C.01 8.3.4.C.02 8.3.5.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 8.5.6(d) |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.10.07.A.01 03.10.07.A.02 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PES domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Physical security-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Physical security controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards), focusing on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs). ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement appropriate physical security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's technology assets and data.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Physical security controls and technologies primarily focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ Where applicable, physical security controls and technologies are configured to generate a log entry for each access attempt through controlled ingress and egress points.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PES domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational physical security capability exists to enforce physical access to critical systems or sensitive/regulated data, in addition to the physical access controls for the facility.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- PES-12_A01 physical spaces are defined.
- PES-12_A02 physical access controls are enforced for the facility at physical spaces.
- PES-12_A03 physical access authorizations are enforced.
Evidence Requirements
- E-PES-11 Physical Security Zones
-
Documented evidence of security safeguards controlling access to designated physical security zones within facilities.
Physical Security
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Locked server closet/cabinet separate from general office access
Small
- Locked server room with access limited to named IT staff
- Separate key or badge level for critical systems
Medium
- Badge-controlled server room with dedicated access group
- Locked racks for critical systems
- Access log review
Large
- Data center / server room access restricted by PACS zone
- Locked cabinets or cages for critical and regulated systems
- Video surveillance of critical areas
Enterprise
- Enterprise data center access control with multi-factor entry (badge + biometric/PIN)
- Caged or locked racks for critical systems
- Continuous access log monitoring