Cyber AB CMMC-CCP Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) imposes liability on companies that knowingly misrepresent compliance in order to receive or retain federal contracts. Penalties include treble damages (three times the government’s losses) plus additional penalties per claim.

Supporting Extracts from Official Content:

False Claims Act: “Any person who knowingly submits false claims to the Government is liable for three times the Government’s damages plus a penalty.”

DOJ Cyber-Fraud Initiative (2021): confirms the FCA is applied to cases of misrepresenting compliance with cybersecurity requirements.

Why Option D is Correct:

The applicable law is the False Claims Act, not a “Cyber Claims Act” (which does not exist).

The FCA specifies treble damages plus penalties, which exactly matches Option D.

References (Official CMMC v2.0 Governance and Source Documents):

False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733).

DOJ Cyber-Fraud Initiative (2021), applied to CMMC-related compliance misrepresentation.

===========

Understanding SI.L2-3.14.6: Monitor Communications for Attacks

The practiceSI.L2-3.14.6fromNIST SP 800-171(aligned with CMMC Level 2) requires an organization tomonitor organizational communications for indicators of attack. This typically includes:

✅Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS)andIntrusion Prevention Systems (IPS)

✅Log analysis and network monitoring

✅Incident response planningfor detected threats

As part of aCMMC Level 2 assessment, theCertified CMMC Assessor (CCA)must ensure that theOSC (Organization Seeking Certification)hasproperly implemented and documenteditsmonitoring capabilities.

Why " Review an artifact to check key references for the configuration of the IDS or IPS " is Correct?

TheCCA must collect sufficient objective evidenceto determine compliance.

Reviewing anartifact(such as system configurations, IDS/IPS logs, or security policies)helps validatethat intrusion detection is properly implemented.

Configuration settings providedirect evidenceof whethermonitoring for attacksis effectively applied.

Breakdown of Answer Choices

Option

Description

Correct?

A. Conduct a penetration test

❌Incorrect–Penetration testing isnot requiredfor CMMC Level 2 assessments and falls outside an assessor ' s responsibilities.

B. Interview the intrusion detection system ' s supplier.

❌Incorrect–Thesupplier does not determine compliance; the assessor needs evidence from theOSC’s implementation.

C. Upload known malicious code and observe the system response.

❌Incorrect–This would beinvasive testing, which isnot part of a CMMC assessment.

D. Review an artifact to check key references for the configuration of the IDS or IPS practice for additional guidance on intrusion detection and prevention systems.

✅Correct – Reviewing system artifacts provides direct evidence of compliance with SI.L2-3.14.6.

Official References from CMMC 2.0 and NIST SP 800-171 Documentation

NIST SP 800-171 SI.L2-3.14.6– Requires monitoring communications for attack indicators.

CMMC Assessment Process Guide (CAP)– Describesartifact reviewas an essential assessment method.

Final Verification and Conclusion

The correct answer isD. Review an artifact to check key references for the configuration of the IDS or IPS practice for additional guidance on intrusion detection and prevention systems.

This aligns withCMMC 2.0 Level 2 assessment requirementsandSI.L2-3.14.6 compliance verification.

This question aligns to the CMMC requirement to control information posted or processed on publicly accessible information systems , which appears in the CMMC Model Overview as AC.L1-3.1.22 (Control Public Information) and maps to FAR 52.204-21(b)(1)(iv) and NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 / r2 requirement 3.1.22 .

NIST explains that publicly accessible systems are typically those accessible to the public without identification or authentication , and that individuals authorized to post nonpublic information (including CUI/FCI and proprietary information) are designated . It also emphasizes controlling what gets posted and ensuring nonpublic information is not exposed.

The most direct technical way to “limit individuals who are authorized to post or process information” is to implement role-based administrative access (least privilege) to the website/CMS/admin console—granting publish/edit privileges only to approved roles (e.g., “Web Publisher,” “Content Approver”), and keeping all other users read-only or without access to posting functions. This directly enforces the requirement by using access control to restrict who can post/process content on the public system.

Options B and C are helpful procedural/administrative controls , but the question asks for technical means . Option A (cookies) does not control authorization to post; it’s not an access control mechanism. Therefore, D is best.