PES-26: Fire Protection
Facility security mechanisms exist to utilize and maintain fire suppression and detection devices/systems for the system that are supported by an independent energy source.
Renumbered: Formerly PES-08 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization utilize and maintain fire suppression and detection devices/systems for the system that are supported by an independent energy source?
General (19)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | A1.2 |
| COBIT 2019 | DSS01.04 |
| GovRAMP | PE-13 |
| GovRAMP Low | PE-13 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | PE-13 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | PE-13 |
| GovRAMP High | PE-13 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | PS-3.1 |
| NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) | 4.D(2)(j) |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | PE-13 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | PE-13 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | PE-13 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | PE-13 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | PE-13 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | PE-13 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | PE-13 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | PE-13 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | PE-13 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | PR.IR-02 |
US (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | PE-13 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | PE-13 |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.C.8 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | PE-13 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | PE-13 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | PE-13 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | PE-13 |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | PE-13 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | PE-13 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | PE-13 |
EMEA (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | PS-01.03B.5 PS-05.01B PS-05.02B.1 PS-05.03B PS-05.04B PS-05.04B.1 PS-05.04B.2 |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.4.3.35 |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 2.0 | Appendix A, 11.2 |
APAC (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 8.5.3 |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 | D.1.2-DS-1 |
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 fire suppression and detection devices/systems for the system that are supported by an independent energy source.
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-26_A01 fire detection systems are employed.
- PES-26_A02 employed fire detection systems are supported by an independent energy source.
- PES-26_A03 employed fire detection systems are maintained.
- PES-26_A04 fire suppression systems are employed.
- PES-26_A05 employed fire suppression systems are supported by an independent energy source.
- PES-26_A06 employed fire suppression systems are maintained.
Evidence Requirements
- E-PES-01 Environmental Monitoring
-
Documented evidence of environmental monitoring (e.g., water leaks, temperature, humidity, etc.)
Physical Security
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Smoke detectors and fire extinguisher in equipment area (typically provided by building)
Small
- Smoke detection and fire extinguishers rated for electrical fires in server room
- Building fire alarm coverage
Medium
- Fire detection and suppression covering server room with independent power
- Annual inspection and testing
Large
- Data center fire detection and suppression (e.g., clean agent, pre-action sprinkler)
- Independent power for fire systems
- Annual certification
Enterprise
- Enterprise fire protection program (VESDA early detection, clean agent suppression such as FM-200/Novec 1230)
- Independent power and monitoring
- Annual certification and testing