Skip to main content

PES-14.4: Automated Records Management & Review

PES 5 — Medium Protect

Automated mechanisms exist to facilitate the maintenance and review of visitor access records.

Renumbered: Formerly PES-06.4 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization use automated mechanisms to facilitate the maintenance and review of visitor access records?

General (10)
US (1)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) PE-08(01)
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 9.4.9.C.01

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

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 capability exists to automatically facilitate the maintenance and review of visitor access records.

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

  1. PES-14.4_A01 automated mechanisms used to maintain visitor access records are defined.
  2. PES-14.4_A02 automated mechanisms used to review visitor access records are defined.
  3. PES-14.4_A03 visitor access records are maintained using automated mechanisms.
  4. PES-14.4_A04 visitor access records are reviewed using automated mechanisms.

Evidence Requirements

E-PES-02 Visitor Logbook

Documented evidence of a visitor management and logging visitor activities.

Physical Security

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Note: Typically not required at this size; paper or spreadsheet visitor log reviewed periodically

Small

  • Electronic visitor log (e.g., iLobby, Envoy free tier)
  • Monthly review of visitor records

Medium

  • Visitor management system with automated record retention and review reports (e.g., Envoy, iLobby)

Large

  • Visitor management system integrated with PACS
  • Automated retention and periodic review reporting
  • Anomaly reporting (after-hours, repeated visits)

Enterprise

  • Enterprise visitor management platform with automated records management, retention and review workflows
  • Integration with PACS and SIEM
  • Compliance reporting on visitor records

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.