What is the most common gap auditors find on PE-2(2)?

Visitors are admitted with one form of identification

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · PE - Physical and Environmental Protection

`PE-2(2)` Physical Access Authorizations | Two Forms of Identification

Q: What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PE-2(2) Physical Access Authorizations | Two Forms of Identification?

Physical and environmental protection policy; Procedures addressing physical access authorizations; List of acceptable forms of identification for visitor access to the facility where the system resides; Access authorization forms; Access credentials; Physical access control logs or records.

Require two forms of identification from the following forms of identification for visitor access to the facility where the system resides: organization-defined list of acceptable forms of identification.

Source: NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, PE-2(2). The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 in the compliance library.

Base controls and their enhancements. Which apply follows the baseline you are assessed against (for example FedRAMP Moderate or High, or the low, moderate and high baselines of SP 800-53B). Text in square brackets is a parameter your organisation sets.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Physical access control logs or records · Physical access / facilities
Test of Organizational processes for physical access authorizations; mechanisms supporting and/or implementing physical access authorizations · Physical access / facilities

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Physical and environmental protection policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedures addressing physical access authorizations · Policy repository / GRC workspace
List of acceptable forms of identification for visitor access to the facility where the system resides · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Access authorization forms · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Access credentials · Policy repository / GRC workspace
System security plan · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Visitors are admitted with one form of identification
The list of acceptable forms of visitor identification was never defined

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

PE-2(1) Physical Access Authorizations | Access by Position or Role · PE-2(3) Physical Access Authorizations | Restrict Unescorted Access