Free and Premium Cyber AB CMMC-CCA Dumps Questions Answers

Applicable Requirement (CMMC Scoping Guidance – Specialized Assets): Specialized Assets (e.g., OT, IoT, GFE, test equipment) are not exempt from CMMC practices. OSCs must provide:

Documented identification in SSP/inventory,

Justification of specialized handling,

Evidence that risk-based security measures are implemented.

Why D is Correct: Assessors must see evidence that isolation is actually implemented (not just planned), plus supporting artifacts showing how remaining applicable practices are addressed (monitoring, inventory, access, etc.). Planned measures alone are insufficient.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A: Installation/config builds do not show operational isolation.

B: Scoping statements alone do not demonstrate implementation.

C: SSP language is descriptive but must be supported by implementation evidence.

References (CCA Official Sources):

CMMC Scoping Guidance — Specialized Assets

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2 — Evidence Requirements for Specialized Assets

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — Asset Management and Risk-Based Controls

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

IA.L2-3.5.7 requires password complexity rules that include uppercase, lowercase, numeric, and special characters. The given policy addresses three requirements but does not mandate at least one special character.

Extract:

“Enforce password complexity by requiring combinations of upper-case letters, lower-case letters, numbers, and special characters.”

Thus, the missing requirement is the use of a special character.

Certification can only be granted to the legal entities that own the CAGE codes under assessment. If multiple CAGE codes are in play (HQ, host, and supporting units), and they are all included in scope, then all entities with corresponding CAGE codes that were assessed can be certified.

Exact Extracts:

CMMC Assessment Guide: “The CMMC certificate is issued to the legal entity (as identified by the CAGE code(s)) that was assessed.”

“When multiple CAGE codes are presented, all in-scope entities must provide documentation and may be certified if assessed.”

“Certification applies to the OSC legal entity (or entities) within scope, including HQ, host, and supporting units, as applicable.”

Why other options are not correct:

A/B/C: Limit scope to only HQ or subsets, but the requirement is that all entities with provided and in-scope CAGE codes are eligible.

Under AT.L2-3.2.3 (Security Awareness Training) and AT.L2-3.2.2 (Insider Threat Training), insider threat awareness training must equip personnel to recognize and report indicators of insider threat activity. Training must focus on organizational processes for reporting suspicious behavior, not just awareness of famous cases or punitive systems. The ability to act and report appropriately is the most critical element.

Exact extracts:

“Training includes recognition of potential indicators of insider threat activity and the organizational processes for reporting suspicious activity.”

“Assessment Objectives … Determine if: insider threat training includes reporting mechanisms.”

“Case studies may be used for context, but training must include clear reporting procedures.”

Expanded explanation:

Insider threat programs under DoD guidance (e.g., NISPOM, CMMC) emphasize:

Awareness of behaviors that may indicate insider threat activity.

Reporting mechanisms — employees must know exactly how to act if they identify an issue.

Procedures for escalation and protection of CUI.

Without reporting procedures, insider threat training is incomplete.

Why other options are incorrect:

A: Bounty systems are not sanctioned practices and could create a hostile work environment.

B: Risk-ranking individuals could be discriminatory and is not a CMMC requirement.

C: Case studies may supplement training but are not sufficient by themselves.

Both the CSP’s cloud environment and the OSC’s on-premises network/workstations are in-scope because CUI is stored in the cloud but also accessed and transmitted by OSC assets. The cloud vendor’s internal employee network is not in-scope because only the customer-facing FedRAMP environment is within the assessment boundary.

Exact extracts:

“CUI Assets include any OSC asset that stores, processes, or transmits CUI.”

“External service providers are in-scope if their services process, store, or transmit CUI on behalf of the OSC.”

“The OSC’s endpoints and local infrastructure that access CUI are also in-scope.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: Cloud environment only is incomplete; OSC workstations also access and transmit CUI.

B: OSC network only ignores the fact that CUI is stored in the cloud.

D: The cloud vendor’s internal employee network is not in-scope.

The Scoping Guidance for Specialized Assets allows exclusion of assets when they are physically and logically isolated from the CMMC assessment boundary and do not process, store, or transmit CUI.

Extract from CMMC Scoping Guidance:

“Specialized Assets may be designated as out-of-scope if they are physically or logically separated from CUI assets, or if they are inherently unable to process, store, or transmit CUI.”

The camera system in this case does not interact with CUI and is fully isolated, making exclusion appropriate.

The OSC is responsible for identifying and declaring where CUI is processed, stored, or transmitted. A Certified CMMC Assessor (CCA) may verify boundaries, examine evidence, and confirm monitoring or control practices, but cannot independently determine if a physically separated asset contains CUI. That determination is the responsibility of the OSC, not the assessor.

Exact extracts:

“The OSC is responsible for identifying CUI assets.”

“Assessors verify and validate the OSC’s identification, but do not independently declare or determine the presence of CUI.”

“Assessors are permitted to examine boundary protections, monitoring mechanisms, and internal boundary controls.”

Why the other options are allowed:

A: Assessors are required to verify internal system boundaries.

C: Assessors must confirm that external system boundaries are clearly defined.

D: Assessors must examine evidence of communication monitoring.

References (CCA documents / Study Guide):

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, Assessor Roles and Responsibilities.

CMMC Code of Professional Conduct (OSC retains CUI ownership; assessors validate but cannot declare CUI).

The Physical and Environmental Protection (PE) Policy is the governing artifact that describes how physical access to facilities and environments is managed and controlled. While the SSP provides a system-wide overview, and access lists provide details of who is authorized, it is the PE Policy that explicitly documents the physical access control measures required under CMMC.

Extract from PE.L2-3.10.1:

“Organizations must develop, document, and disseminate physical and environmental protection policies that govern how access to buildings and systems containing CUI is limited to authorized individuals.”

The OSC (Organization Seeking Certification) is always responsible for meeting CMMC requirements, regardless of what responsibilities are shared or outsourced to an ESP. ESPs can provide inherited practices (e.g., FedRAMP Moderate for cloud CUI), but the OSC remains accountable for compliance under government mandates.

Exact Extracts:

CMMC Assessment Guide: “The OSC is the entity being assessed. While an ESP may provide inherited practices, the OSC retains ultimate responsibility for compliance.”

Scoping Guide: “External Service Providers may meet requirements on behalf of the OSC; however, it is the OSC that is assessed and must demonstrate sufficiency of evidence.”

Why other options are not correct:

A: Incorrect — ESPs that process CUI must meet FedRAMP Moderate equivalency, even if not directly assessed for CMMC.

B: While true, factoring documentation does not override that OSC remains accountable.

C: ESPs are not assessed at the same time as the OSC; only the OSC receives certification.

The Physical Protection (PE) practices require that visitors to facilities where CUI is processed must be escorted at all times by an authorized individual. Familiarity or long-term knowledge of the visitor does not remove the requirement.

Extract from PE.L2-3.10.3:

“Escort visitors and monitor visitor activity to ensure they do not access areas or information for which they are not authorized.”

Thus, the correct action is for the contact person (the engineer’s point of contact) to escort the engineer during the entire maintenance activity.

The CMMC Scoping Guidance specifies that Contractor Risk Managed Assets must:

Be documented in the asset inventory,

Be governed by the organization’s own risk-based policies and procedures,

Be included in the system boundary/network diagram.

Extract:

“Contractor Risk Managed Assets are those managed according to the OSC’s risk-based policies and procedures. They must be documented in the asset inventory and represented in the system boundary.”

Thus, option C is the best answer.

The Physical Protection (PE) Domain requires implementation of physical access controls to prevent unauthorized access to CUI systems. Simply trusting employees or sending communications is not sufficient. However, if the server is located inside a secondary restricted room that only the IT team can access, then adequate physical protection controls are still in place.

Extract from PE.L2-3.10.x (Physical Protection Practices):

“Organizations must limit physical access to systems, equipment, and environments that process, store, or transmit CUI to authorized individuals only.”

Thus, placing the server within an additional restricted access-controlled room ensures compliance, even if the outer door is propped open for cooling.

MA.L2-3.7.1 (Perform Maintenance) requires that maintenance activities and risks associated with outdated or unsupported systems be managed. Unsupported systems create a security risk if not mitigated, particularly when they process CUI.

Extract:

“Maintenance must be performed and documented to ensure continued secure operation. When systems cannot be updated or patched due to technical limitations, the OSC must implement and document risk mitigation strategies.”

Because the OSC has not demonstrated risk management for the outdated OT system, the practice is NOT MET.

Applicable Requirement: PE.L2-3.10.1 — “Limit physical access to organizational information systems, equipment, and the respective operating environments to authorized individuals.”

Why D is Correct: Documented procedures describing physical access restrictions (badge policies, visitor management, locked server rooms, guard post orders) serve as primary evidence that access is managed and enforced. Assessors can then corroborate via interviews and observation.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A (VPN configuration): Relates to remote logical access, not physical security.

B (Switch configs): Technical network controls, not physical access.

C (Architecture drawings): Show logical/system design, not physical entry restrictions.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — PE.L2-3.10.1

NIST SP 800-171A — PE.L2-3.10.1 Assessment Objectives

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2 — Physical Protection Evidence Guidance

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.

Applicable Requirement: SC.L2-3.13.8 (Cryptographic protection of communications) and IA.L2-3.5.x (Identification and authentication).

Why D is Correct: Encryption must be validated as FIPS 140-2/3 compliant but is never “authenticated as a prerequisite to access.” Authentication applies to users, devices, and processes, not cryptographic modules themselves.

Why A, B, C are Correct Considerations:

Devices must be authorized before connecting.

Processes acting on behalf of a user must be authenticated.

Users must be authorized prior to access. These are all directly mapped to AC and IA domains.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — IA and SC requirements

NIST SP 800-171A — Assessment Objectives for AC/IA wireless and cloud access

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, Cloud/ESP Considerations

===========

The Physical Protection (PE) practices require that unmanned access points to areas containing CUI be restricted with technical controls that only allow entry to authorized personnel. While cameras, signage, and turnstiles support security, they do not actually prevent access.

Extract from PE.L2-3.10.1:

“Limit physical access to organizational information systems, equipment, and the respective operating environments to authorized individuals.”

The strongest measure listed is one-way gates requiring credentials or intercom authorization, which directly enforces access control.

The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP), Phase 2 – Conduct the Assessment defines the subphases for generating final recommended results. The steps are:

Determine final practice MET/NOT MET/NA results

Create, finalize, and record recommended final findings

Resolve assessment findings disputes

Extract:

“The assessment team determines the final practice status, records recommended findings, and resolves disputes with the OSC prior to finalizing recommended results.”

The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) requires that when sensitive or proprietary materials are exchanged during an assessment, the OSC and the C3PAO should establish confidentiality protections through a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

Extract:

“OSC and C3PAOs are expected to execute a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to protect sensitive information such as proprietary, attorney-client privileged, or pre-patent materials shared during the assessment process.”

Thus, the NDA is the correct document.

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.

Access Control (AC): Wi-Fi access must be restricted to authorized users and devices. CMMC Level 2 incorporates NIST SP 800-171 AC requirements to limit and control access to systems and resources.

Identification and Authentication (IA): Wireless access requires authentication to ensure only authorized individuals/devices can connect (e.g., WPA2-Enterprise, certificates, or strong passwords).

System and Communications Protection (SC): Wi-Fi encryption and secure configuration protect data-in-transit from interception or unauthorized disclosure.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A (MP, AC, PE): Media protection and physical protection are not primary domains for Wi-Fi configuration.

B (IA, MP, SI): Media protection and system/information integrity do not directly address Wi-Fi security.

D (SC, SI, PE): Physical and integrity controls are not central to wireless access security.

References (CCA Official Sources):

CMMC Model v2.0 — Domains AC, IA, SC

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — AC.L2-3.1.1, IA.L2-3.5.3, SC.L2-3.13.8 (wireless access, identification/authentication, protection of communications)

NIST SP 800-171A — Associated assessment objectives verifying Wi-Fi control and encryption

===========

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.

===========

According to CMMC Scoping Guidance, assets controlled by a parent organization are out-of-scope when they are physically and logically isolated from the OSC’s environment and do not process, store, or transmit CUI within the OSC’s boundary.

Extract from Scoping Guidance:

“Out-of-Scope assets are those that cannot process, store, or transmit CUI because they are physically or logically separated from CUI assets, or they are inherently unable to do so.”

Since the badge activation machine is completely isolated and managed by the parent organization, and it has no network connectivity to the OSC, it is out-of-scope.

When CUI and FCI reside on the same network, the entire environment is considered a CUI environment. The presence of CUI drives the assessment requirement to CMMC Level 2, regardless of whether FCI also exists. Assets cannot be assessed separately under Level 1 vs. Level 2 within the same network boundary.

Exact extracts:

“If CUI is processed, stored, or transmitted within an environment, the environment is in scope for CMMC Level 2.”

“The presence of CUI dictates the assessment level, regardless of whether FCI is also present.”

“Segmentation may reduce scope, but if assets remain within the same environment, all assets fall under Level 2.”

Why other options are incorrect:

B: Level 1 cannot be applied to Server A while Server B undergoes Level 2 in the same network.

C: Presence of CUI means Level 2 is required, not Level 1.

D: Segmentation can reduce scope but is not required before assessment; it is an OSC design choice.

CMMC requires physical access to systems containing or transmitting CUI to be limited to authorized individuals and for access records to be maintained. Badge readers with unique identification provide individual accountability, access control enforcement, and auditable access logs, which are stronger than labels, cameras, or keypads.

Exact Extracts:

PE.L2-3.10.1: “Limit physical access to organizational systems, equipment, and the respective operating environments to authorized individuals.”

PE.L2-3.10.5: “Maintain audit logs of physical access.”

CMMC Assessment Guide: “Badge systems with access control lists and logs are considered a best method for meeting physical access requirements.”

Why the other options are not correct:

A: Labels and lists do not prevent unauthorized access.

C: Cameras monitor but do not restrict access; they are detective, not preventive.

D: Keypads do not provide individual accountability (codes can be shared).

CMMC requires that remote maintenance sessions be terminated after use or after a defined period of inactivity. This ensures third-party maintenance access does not remain open and uncontrolled, preventing unauthorized persistence.

Exact Extracts:

MA.L2-3.7.5: “Require multifactor authentication and terminate remote maintenance sessions after each session or after a defined period of inactivity.”

Assessment Guide clarifies: “Assessors should confirm remote maintenance sessions are automatically terminated using technical means.”

NIST SP 800-171A Objective: “Test maintenance session termination after a set time of inactivity or completion of task.”

Why other options are not correct:

A: Limiting maintenance to third parties only is not a requirement. Internal staff may also perform maintenance.

B: Identification and monitoring are important, but the specific control required here is termination of remote sessions.

C: Limiting the number of personnel is not mandated by CMMC.

CMMC Level 2 requires that network access to CUI systems be restricted to authorized users and devices. A guest network without password protection that connects directly into the LAN violates AC.L2-3.1.3 (Access Enforcement) and SC.L2-3.13.16 (Cryptographic protection) because unauthorized users may access OSC systems and CUI indirectly.

Exact Extracts:

AC.L2-3.1.3: “Control the flow of CUI by enforcing access restrictions.”

SC.L2-3.13.16: “Employ cryptographic mechanisms to protect confidentiality of CUI during transmission.”

Assessment Guide: “Guest wireless networks must be segmented and controlled to prevent unauthorized access to internal networks containing CUI.”

Why other options are not correct:

A: Additional assessment is irrelevant — issue is failure to meet requirements.

C/D: False — requirements clearly exist, and the OSC’s current setup fails them.

In CMMC scoping, only assets that process, store, or transmit CUI (CUI Assets) or that can access them (Security Protection, Contractor Risk Managed, Specialized Assets) are in-scope. Since the SCADA system is firewalled off and does not handle CUI, it does not fall under CUI Asset classification and is considered Out-of-Scope.

Exact extracts:

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

“Assets that do not process, store, or transmit CUI and have no connectivity to CUI Assets are considered Out-of-Scope.”

“Specialized Assets… are only in-scope if they process, store, or transmit CUI.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: Inclusion requires processing/storing/transmitting CUI.

C: OSC cannot arbitrarily bring unrelated systems into scope; CUI relevance governs scope.

D: Not all Specialized Assets are in-scope; only those with CUI interaction are.

If an asset processes or generates CUI, it is a CUI Asset by definition, regardless of whether it is also part of a test lab or claimed as a Specialized Asset. Specialized Asset handling applies only when the asset does not process, store, or transmit CUI. Since the workstation outputs CUI, it must be assessed fully against CMMC practices.

Exact extracts:

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

“Specialized Assets… do not process, store, or transmit CUI.”

“If a Specialized Asset processes CUI, it must be categorized as a CUI Asset and is assessed against all applicable practices.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

B: The issue is not with the SSP practice; it is with misclassification of an asset.

C/D: Risk-based treatment applies only to Specialized Assets without CUI, which is not the case here.

The negative finding is that the OSC permits an uncertified external security provider to access the OSC’s internal network. This introduces unmanaged risk to the CUI environment. CMMC requires the OSC to control and monitor external service provider access. The storage of recordings externally is not inherently noncompliant if properly controlled, and video monitoring is a valid method of meeting PE.L2-3.10.2. The key failure is giving unmanaged third-party access.

Exact extracts:

“Monitor physical facility to detect and respond to physical security incidents.” (PE.L2-3.10.2)

“Assessment Objectives … Determine if: monitoring is performed; unauthorized physical access is detected and responded to.”

“External service providers that connect into the OSC network are considered in-scope and must meet CMMC requirements or have equivalent authorization (e.g., FedRAMP).”

Why other options are incorrect:

A: Requirement does not mandate monitoring of both public and private areas.

C: Video surveillance is an acceptable facility monitoring method when properly implemented.

D: External storage can be acceptable if contractual safeguards and compliance are in place.

CMMC Level 2 requires CSPs that process, store, or transmit CUI to meet FedRAMP Moderate (or equivalent) authorization, not FedRAMP High. FedRAMP High is not a CMMC requirement but may be required by contract or specific agencies.

Exact Extracts:

DoD CMMC Scoping Guide: “External Cloud Service Providers must meet FedRAMP Moderate equivalency when storing, processing, or transmitting CUI.”

CMMC Assessment Guide: “The baseline requirement for CUI in cloud environments is FedRAMP Moderate; higher levels may be contractually required.”

Why other options are not correct:

A: Equivalency is allowed, but only to FedRAMP Moderate level.

C/D: Incorrect, because CMMC Level 2 does not mandate FedRAMP High.

To validate that remote access is routed through managed access control points, the assessor requires technical evidence, not just policy. The network diagram shows the design and routing of remote access through controlled points (e.g., VPN gateways), and VPN logs provide operational evidence that remote sessions are enforced through those points.

Exact Extracts:

AC.L2-3.1.14: “Route remote access through managed access control points.”

Assessment Objective (AC.L2-3.1.14[a]): “Remote access is routed through managed access control points.”

Assessment Method (Examine/Interview/Test): Requires network diagrams and remote access logs as evidence.

CMMC Assessment Guide specifies: “Network diagrams and supporting logs are required to demonstrate implementation of remote access routing.”

Why the other options are not correct:

B (policy/procedures): Policies describe intent, not proof of implementation.

C (SSP/vendor mgmt): SSPs provide system description but not direct evidence of enforcement.

D (cloud logs/hardware inventory): These do not specifically demonstrate remote access routing through managed points.

The Examine assessment method requires the assessor to review policies, processes, and procedures that are finalized and approved, not drafts or informal materials. This ensures the OSC has formally documented, management-approved artifacts supporting each practice. Drafts, in-process training materials, or incomplete diagrams do not satisfy the “Examine” method requirements.

Exact extracts:

“Examine: Review, inspect, and analyze assessment objects, such as policies, procedures, and system documentation.”

“Examine requires finalized artifacts; draft or incomplete materials do not constitute valid evidence.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: “Mailed form” is irrelevant — only completeness and approval matter.

C: Training materials are not substitutes for policy/process evidence.

D: Draft diagrams do not satisfy final documentation requirements.

In CMMC scoping, assets are categorized based on where CUI is processed, stored, or transmitted. According to the CMMC Scoping Guide for Level 2, if CUI is only stored and used in HQ and Site A, those locations contain CUI Assets. Since Site B neither stores, processes, nor transmits CUI, its assets are considered Out of Scope.

Exact extracts:

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

“Assets that do not process, store, or transmit CUI, and cannot provide access to CUI, are considered Out-of-Scope.”

“Only those assets in the scope of CMMC assessment will be evaluated against practices.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

B: Site B has VPN connectivity, but if it does not use or process CUI, its assets remain out of scope. Connectivity alone does not bring it into scope.

C/D: The terms “Certification in Risk Management Assurance” are not valid CMMC asset categories.

References (CCA documents / Study Guide):

CMMC Assessment Scope – Level 2 Scoping Guide (CUI Assets, Out-of-Scope Assets).

===========

The Physical Protection (PE) practices require both direct assessor observation of security controls and verification of how the OSC manages access to its cages/cabinets.

Extract:

“Assessors should observe and verify the effectiveness of physical access controls and confirm the OSC’s processes for maintaining control over restricted areas and assets.”

Thus, the best option is to physically visit the facility and review OSC’s key access management process.

The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) requires that results be reported at the OSC level. While findings may be gathered from enclaves or units, the final reporting must be aggregated and scored across the entire OSC assessment boundary.

Extract:

“Final recommended assessment results must be consolidated and reported at the OSC level, regardless of assessment locations or enclaves.”

Thus, the Lead Assessor must ensure aggregation to the OSC level.

The Physical Protection (PE) requirements require that systems containing FCI or CUI be placed in controlled-access facilities with safeguards against unauthorized physical access.

Extract from PE.L2-3.10.1:

“Limit physical access to organizational information systems, equipment, and the respective operating environments to authorized individuals.”

Thus, ensuring that the VMs run on hardware located in a controlled-access facility is the correct method to meet physical security requirements.

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.

If the OSC cannot remediate deficiencies during the POA&M Close-Out process, the Lead Assessor must issue a recommendation of NOT MET, and the OSC will not be certified. CMMC requires all Level 2 practices to be MET (with limited exceptions under defined POA&M close-out rules).

Exact Extracts:

CMMC Assessment Guide: “If practices cannot be met within the POA&M Close-Out process, the Lead Assessor must not recommend certification.”

DoD policy: “CMMC Level 2 requires that all 110 practices be met. A failed POA&M Close-Out results in a final determination of NOT MET.”

“There is no provisional certification status in CMMC.”

Why the other options are not correct:

A: Assessments are not paused indefinitely; unresolved deficiencies result in NOT MET.

B: Justification alone does not satisfy requirements.

C: Provisional status does not exist in CMMC.

The requirement for CA.L2-3.12.3 – Security Control Monitoring mandates monitoring to be performed on an ongoing basis to ensure the continued effectiveness of the controls. This is not satisfied by a yearly review alone.

CA.L2-3.12.3 Security Control Monitoring – Monitor security controls on an ongoing basis to ensure the continued effectiveness of the controls.

The OSC’s statement in their SSP that monitoring occurs on a one-year periodic basis fails to meet this requirement, because the term "ongoing basis" implies continual or recurring monitoring activities that occur throughout the system’s lifecycle—not a single annual review.

Therefore, the assessor must determine that the OSC’s implementation is not acceptable.

Applicable Requirement: SC.L2-3.13.16 — “Protect the confidentiality of CUI at rest.”

Why D is Correct: Cryptographic mechanisms (e.g., full-disk encryption, database encryption, file encryption) provide the strongest protection for information at rest by preventing unauthorized disclosure if systems or media are accessed.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A (Patching): Protects against vulnerabilities, but not specific to data-at-rest confidentiality.

B (File share): Provides a storage method, not protection.

C (Secure offline storage): Helps physically, but not sufficient for digital confidentiality without encryption.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — SC.L2-3.13.16

NIST SP 800-171A — SC.L2-3.13.16 Assessment Objectives

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, Data at Rest Protection

===========

External connections are defined as connections crossing the OSC’s assessment boundary. Here:

The dedicated VPN from office to cloud = one external connection.

The user-initiated VPNs from remote laptops to cloud = a second external connection.

Extract:

“External connections include all system interfaces that cross the assessment boundary, including VPNs initiated by users or established between sites.”

Thus, there are two external connections.

The CAP requires that prior to the assessment, the Lead Assessor submit documentation confirming that Assessment Team members have no conflicts of interest and meet qualification requirements. This is recorded through the Absence of Conflict of Interest and Confirmation Statement.

Extract:

“Before assessment initiation, the C3PAO must provide confirmation to the Cyber-AB that all Assessment Team members have declared absence of conflict of interest and are confirmed to participate.”

Thus, the required submission is the Absence of Conflict of Interest and Confirmation Statement.

Applicable Requirement: PE.L2-3.10.3 — “Control physical access to organizational systems, equipment, and the respective operating environments.”

Why A is Correct: Security guards are a recognized preventive and detective physical control to limit access to only authorized individuals. Guards can verify credentials, monitor behavior, and provide real-time deterrence.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

B (Cameras): Provide monitoring and evidence, but not direct access control.

C (Firewalls): A network control, not a physical access measure.

D (Partition walls): Barriers may help physically separate areas but do not control who enters.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — PE.L2-3.10.3

NIST SP 800-171A — PE.L2-3.10.3 Assessment Objectives

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2 — Physical Security Controls

===========