Cyber AB CMMC-CCA Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Malicious code protection is typically implemented and managed by system or network administrators, who configure, deploy, and monitor anti-malware solutions. Interviews with these administrators provide direct evidence of control implementation.

Exact Extracts:

SI.L2-3.14.2: “Provide protection from malicious code at appropriate locations within organizational information systems.”

CMMC Assessment Guide: “Interviews should be conducted with administrators responsible for deployment and monitoring of malicious code protection.”

NIST SP 800-171A (SI.L2-3.14.2): “Interview system or network administrators to determine how malicious code protection is implemented.”

Why other options are not correct:

A (developers): Developers do not typically manage system-wide malicious code protections.

C (audit personnel): They review logs, not deploy/manage protections.

D (security advisory staff): They track alerts but don’t operate malicious code defenses.

Applicable Requirement: CM.L2-3.4.3 — “Track, review, approve/disapprove, and audit changes to organizational systems.”

Why CCB Minutes Are Correct (supports B):

Change Control Board (CCB) documentation includes impact analyses, approvals, disapprovals, and justification for system changes.

The CMMC Assessment Guide explicitly identifies CCB minutes and supporting records as primary evidence of compliance with change management practices.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A (Vendor description): Provides information on the update, but does not show organizational review or approval.

C (Audit logs): Show when a change occurred, but not whether it was analyzed and approved beforehand.

D (Incident logs): Reflects results after implementation, but not the review/approval process.

Assessment Guidance Extract (NIST SP 800-171A, CM.L2-3.4.3):

Objectives include verifying that system changes are:

Documented,

Reviewed,

Approved/disapproved, and

Audited.

Evidence such as CCB minutes and approval records directly satisfies these objectives.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — CM.L2-3.4.3 (Change Management)

NIST SP 800-171A — Assessment Objectives for CM.L2-3.4.3

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, Version 2.13 — Change Management evidence expectations

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.