ASOM-Fedv6.1Open the explorer
M1.13 · M1 Screen / Guard · 13 of 15

Physical Access Anomaly Detection

What It Does

Read badge and access-control telemetry as an intelligence source rather than an audit artifact, and correlate it with logical access.

Observable indicator. Impossible-travel and after-hours physical anomalies raise a finding.

Where It Sits

A technique is chosen from inside a form and emplaced on one layer. Both are the catalog’s own declarations; the position is counted in catalog order.

  • Form of maneuverM1 Screen / GuardGain early warning and buy reaction time before the adversary touches key terrain.
  • Terrain layerT8 FacilitiesThe physical boundary. Key terrain: Data center and wiring closet boundaries, public-access areas, maintenance routes.
  • Position in the form13 of 15M1 carries 15 cataloged techniques; this is the 13th in catalog order.

Phases It Is Employed In

Employed in 2 of the campaign’s six phases. A phase named here means at least this technique is live in it — not that the form it belongs to is the main effort.

  • Phase 0ShapeContinuous terrain preparation, zero-trust hardening, partnerships, threat intelligence.
  • Phase IISeize InitiativeDetect early, canalize movement, and buy decision time.

Controls That Assess It

The controls the catalog names against this technique. They are what an assessor would test to establish that it is emplaced and working — the indicator above is what shows it is working, which is a different question.

  • FC-1 Facility Terrain IdentificationFacilities Terrain — To resolve the estate to physical locations, so that defense, recovery and continuity can be reasoned about in the place things actually are.
  • FC-2 Physical Zone BoundaryFacilities Terrain — To establish physical boundaries that constrain movement and produce a record of crossing, so that physical terrain can be defended in depth rather than at a perimeter.
  • CE-3 Fusion and ConfidenceCycle Execution and Assurance — To distinguish assessment from assertion, so that decisions taken on analytic conclusions carry the uncertainty of those conclusions with them.

In MITRE D3FEND

What this technique is called in MITRE’s countermeasure ontology. The join runs technique-to-technique: D3FEND catalogs countermeasures, and the thing with a countermeasure’s shape here is the technique, not the control.

That a technique reaches a D3FEND countermeasure says the two describe the same defensive act. It does not say the countermeasure is deployed, configured, or working — that is an assessment finding about your estate, not a property of the framework.

Related Techniques

The catalog declares no relation for this entry, and no other entry names it — the inverse is derived here, so an incoming edge would show up even though this one never declared it. The techniques below share its assessment surface, which is the nearest adjacency the data supports.

Assessed Alongside

Not a declared relation: these are the techniques whose assessing controls overlap this one’s, ranked by how much of the two assessment surfaces coincide. Showing 6 of 8 that share at least one control.