Skip to main content

PES-15: Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Protection

PES 1 — Low Protect

Physical security mechanisms exist to employ safeguards against Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) damage for systems and system components.

Control Question: Does the organization employ safeguards against Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) damage for systems and system components?

General (3)

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to employ safeguards against Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) damage for systems and system components.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

C|P-CMM1 is N/A, since a structured process is required to employ safeguards against Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) damage for systems and system components.

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 employ safeguards against Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) damage for systems and system components.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PES-15_A01 protective measures to be employed against electromagnetic pulse damage are defined.
  2. PES-15_A02 system and system components requiring protection against electromagnetic pulse damage are defined.
  3. PES-15_A03 protective measures are employed against electromagnetic pulse damage for system and system components.

Technology Recommendations

Large

  • EMP shielding (Faraday cages)

Enterprise

  • EMP shielding (Faraday cages)

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.