The United States Department of Defense (DoD) views securing the supply chain and the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) as one critical pillar in protecting national security. Dedicated security requirements exist for the protection of federal information systems as well as classified information based on the NIST 800-53 standard. However, several years ago, a gap was identified in the security requirements for the protection of non-federal systems and controlled unclassified information (CUI). The steps initially taken by the DoD to enhance supply chain security would end up having significant implications for nearly all organizations that do work with the DoD.
To summarize, the DoD began requiring organizations that handle CUI to comply with the 110 security requirements outlined in NIST 800-171 via the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.204-7012. This contractual obligation required defense contractors to “self-attest” their compliance with this standard as well as to maintain a System Security Plan (SSP) and Plan of Action and Milestones (PoAM) to document security gaps.
The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) was developed to address some of the shortcomings of this original approach. It was determined that while the security standard of NIST 800-171 was appropriate, the DFARS clause had no “teeth”; it lacked accountability. The self-attestation model and broad allowance for non-compliant items, i.e., PoAMs, meant that many defense contractors did not actually implement the standard, manage their security program, or remediate non-compliant items. CMMC sought to fix these issues by moving to an independent third-party certification model, enhancing the framework with five different levels of security maturity, removing the allowances for PoAM items, and introducing significant documentation and governance requirements via “process maturity” requirements.
What Is in Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0?
Beyond the initial DFARS rule, the initial self-attest implementation of NIST 800-171 requirements, and the idealistic vision introduced with CMMC version 1.0, the DoD has again revised the requirements for security compliance within the DIB with CMMC version 2.0. In many ways, CMMC 2.0 represents a “back to basics” approach by removing certain components of the original model that were deemed unnecessary or overly burdensome for the defense supply chain. Some of the major revisions within CMMC 2.0 include:
- A reduction of the number of maturity levels from five to three, removing the CMMC version 1.0 levels 2 and 4. Organizations that process controlled unclassified information will now find themselves pursuing CMMC 2.0 Level 2 compliance, compared with Level 3 compliance in CMMC version 1.0.
- The earlier addition of the 20 technical requirements, known as “the delta 20" (added in the evolution from NIST SP 800-171 to CMMC version 1.0 Level 3), have been eliminated. This means that the requirement for organizations within the DIB that process CUI has now been reverted to the NIST 800-171 standard.
- All process maturity requirements that were net-new with CMMC version 1.0 have been eliminated.
- CMMC 2.0 Level 1 remains mostly unchanged for organizations that process federal contract information except that an annual self-assessment now suffices for government compliance rather than certification by a CMMC 3rd Party Assessment Organization (C3PAO).
- CMMC 2.0 Level 2 requires the implementation of NIST SP 800-171. For some contracts that must meet the Level 2 requirements, triennial certifications by a C3PAO will be mandatory. Other contracts will be satisfied by an annual self-assessment. The criteria that determine the contracts selected for C3PAOs versus self-assessment are unknown at this time.
- CMMC 2.0 Level 3 largely equates to the previous Levels 4 and 5. It will require the implementation of NIST SP 800-172. Only a government-led assessment team can certify an organization to Level 3, not a C3PAO.
- Plan of Action and Milestones are formally included again. Previously, an organization seeking certification (OSC) needed to implement 100% of the requirements to be certified. Under CMMC 2.0, OSCs may be certified with some number of open items. Certain requirements must be implemented for certification and contract award, and some PoAMs will be allowed as long as the plan to implement has a clearly identified timeline. The guidance around the allowances for PoAM items has not yet been clarified.
The changes reflected in CMMC version 2.0 will be implemented through the government rule-making process in Part 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations and in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). This means that the rule-making process may not be finalized for another nine to 24 months, meaning it will be some time before organizations begin seeing CMMC version 2.0 as a contractual obligation.
What should you do now? The DoD has indicated they do not intend to approve the inclusion of a CMMC version 2.0 requirement in any contract prior to the completion of the CMMC 2.0 rule-making process. However, most companies planning for CMMC compliance are already subject to FAR 52.204-21 and/or DFARS 252.204-7012, which require the implementation of certain technical safeguards. These existing contractual obligations remain unchanged and largely form the basis of the CMMC 2.0 Levels 1 and 3, respectively. Therefore, companies should continue to build and maintain compliance programs and close PoAM items pursuant to their contractually obligated compliance frameworks.
About the Author: Scott Goodwin is a Manager in DGC’s Business Advisory Group and a team member of the IT Risk Assurance & Advisory practice. He has extensive experience including vulnerability assessment, infrastructure and application penetration testing, and social engineering. Scott’s areas of focus also include CMMC and DFARS assessment, information security program development and implementation, and fractional CISO services.
If you have questions related to these defense industrial base compliance requirements or other steps you can take to assess and secure your environment, contact Scott Goodwin, OSCP, OSWP, CEH at [email protected].
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this guest author article are solely those of the contributor, and do not necessarily reflect those of Tripwire, Inc.
