PES-23: Emergency Lighting
Facility security mechanisms exist to utilize and maintain automatic emergency lighting that activates in the event of a power outage or disruption and that covers emergency exits and evacuation routes within the facility.
Renumbered: Formerly PES-07.4 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization utilize and maintain automatic emergency lighting that activates in the event of a power outage or disruption and that covers emergency exits and evacuation routes within the facility?
General (20)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) | S7.2-POF6 |
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | A1.2 |
| COBIT 2019 | DSS01.04 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | DCS-14 |
| GovRAMP | PE-12 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | PE-12 |
| GovRAMP High | PE-12 |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 7.11 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 11.2.2 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 7.11 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | PS-3.1 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | PE-12 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | PE-12 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | PE-12 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | PE-12 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | PE-12 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | PE-12 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | PE-12 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | PE-12 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | PE-12 |
US (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | PE-12 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | PE-12 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | PE-12 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | PE-12 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | PE-12 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | PE-12 |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | PE-12 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | PE-12 |
EMEA (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | mp.if.4 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 13.1.2(a) |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 2.0 | Appendix A, 11.1 |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 11.2.2.6 |
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.
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 utilize and maintain automatic emergency lighting that activates in the event of a power outage or disruption and that covers emergency exits and evacuation routes within the facility.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ 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. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
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-23_A01 automatic emergency lighting that activates in the event of a power outage or disruption is employed for the system.
- PES-23_A02 automatic emergency lighting that activates in the event of a power outage or disruption is maintained for the system.
- PES-23_A03 automatic emergency lighting for the system covers emergency exits within the facility.
- PES-23_A04 automatic emergency lighting for the system covers evacuation routes within the facility.
Evidence Requirements
- E-PES-13 Emergency Power & Utility Protections
-
Documented evidence of emergency power, emergency shutoff, emergency lighting, voltage controls and redundant cabling.
Physical Security
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Battery-backed emergency lighting at exits (typically provided by building)
Small
- Emergency lighting covering exits and server room
- Periodic testing
Medium
- Automatic emergency lighting for evacuation routes and equipment rooms
- Monthly/annual testing per fire code
Large
- Facility emergency lighting system with battery backup and scheduled testing
- Coverage of data center and evacuation routes
Enterprise
- Enterprise emergency lighting program with automated self-test systems
- Integration with facility management and life safety systems