Cyber AB CMMC-CCA Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The Shared Responsibility Matrix (Customer Responsibility Matrix) is the authoritative document that specifies which security responsibilities are owned by the OSC versus the Cloud Service Provider (CSP). This enables assessors to determine which CMMC practices apply to the OSC and which are inherited from the provider.

Exact extracts:

“External Service Providers (ESPs), including CSPs, must provide a Shared Responsibility Matrix that delineates customer versus provider responsibilities.”

“Assessors should request and review this matrix to determine practice applicability.”

Why other options are incorrect:

A: Zero Trust Architecture is a design framework, not a responsibility breakdown.

C: White papers are marketing/technical resources, not binding assignments of responsibility.

D: IAM Plans address access management, not overall shared responsibilities.

CMMC scoping focuses on assets that process, store, transmit, or protect CUI. A smoke detector connected to the OSC network is an IoT device with no impact on CUI, so it is considered Out-of-Scope. The other items (data centers used by the OSC, MSP SIEM tools, and MSP offices handling OSC management) all directly affect the OSC’s CUI environment and therefore fall within scope.

Exact extracts:

“CUI Assets are those that process, store, or transmit CUI.”

“Security Protection Assets are those that provide security functions for CUI Assets.”

“External Service Providers (e.g., MSPs, data centers, SIEMs) that support CUI Assets are in-scope.”

“Assets that cannot affect the confidentiality of CUI (e.g., unrelated IoT devices) are considered Out-of-Scope.”

Expanded explanation:

Data centers (A): If OSC CUI is stored or processed there, they are in-scope.

SIEM tools (C): Provide security monitoring of OSC networks — a clear Security Protection Asset.

MSP office (D): MSPs providing services that affect CUI are in-scope, including their management locations.

Smoke detector (B): Despite being network-connected, it does not interact with CUI or provide protective functions; it is explicitly out-of-scope.

Why the other options are in scope:

They either process, protect, or manage CUI directly.

Excluding them would improperly narrow the assessment boundary.

The control SC.L2-3.13.5: Boundary Protection requires that organizations monitor and control communications at the external boundary and at key internal boundaries. The CMMC Assessment Guide states that assessors should examine boundary protection procedures to verify logging, monitoring, and alerting are defined and implemented. Physical access logs, account management documents, and configuration management policies do not provide details of how network boundaries are monitored and protected.

Exact extracts:

“Assessment Objectives … Determine if: • external boundary and key internal boundaries are defined; • communications are monitored and controlled at boundaries; • traffic is checked for unauthorized transfer of information; and • boundary protection devices are configured and managed.”

“Potential Assessment Methods: Examine … boundary protection policy; boundary protection procedures; system security plan; configuration settings for boundary protection devices; logs of boundary protection devices.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

A (Physical access logs): Relates to facility entry, not network boundary protection.

C (Account management document): Addresses user account lifecycle, not firewall and traffic control.

D (Configuration management policy): Governs system changes, not firewall logging/alerting controls.

References (CCA documents / Study Guide):

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, SC.L2-3.13.5 “Boundary Protection.”

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2, 3.13.5.

===========