CMMC-CCP Exam Dumps - Cyber AB CMMC Questions and Answers

Understanding the "Examine" Assessment Method in CMMC 2.0

CMMC 2.0 usesthree assessment methodsto evaluate security compliance:

Examine– Reviewing, inspecting, observing, studying, or analyzing assessment objects (e.g., policies, system documentation).

Interview– Speaking with personnel to verify knowledge and responsibilities.

Test– Performing technical validation to check system configurations.

Relevant CMMC 2.0 Reference:

TheCMMC Assessment Process (CAP)definesExamineas the method used toreview or analyze assessment objects, such as policies, procedures, configurations, and logs.

Why is the Correct Answer "Examine" (C)?

A. Test → Incorrect

"Test" involvesexecutinga function to validate its security (e.g., verifying access controls through a live system test).

B. Assess → Incorrect

"Assess" is a broad term; CMMC explicitly defines "Examine" as the method for reviewing documentation.

C. Examine → Correct

"Examine" is the official term forreviewing policies, procedures, configurations, or logs.

D. Interview → Incorrect

"Interview" involvesverbal discussions with personnel, not document analysis.

CMMC 2.0 References Supporting this Answer:

CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) Document

Defines "Examine" asanalyzing assessment objects (e.g., policies, procedures, logs, documentation).

NIST SP 800-171A

Specifies "Examine" as a method toreview security controls and configurations.

In CMMC v2.0, the closeout activity for remediating previously unmet requirements is handled through the POA & M closeout process described in the CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v2.0 . CAP v2.0 makes clear that the C3PAO must follow DoD’s POA & M closeout procedures and that the Assessment Team performs the closeout work, with the assessment results then undergoing a required quality assurance (QA) review .

Operationally, the person who must ensure that each previously failed requirement is adequately addressed during the closeout assessment is the Lead Assessor (Lead CCA) , because the Lead CCA is the individual designated to oversee and manage the Assessment Team on behalf of the C3PAO for the conduct of the certification assessment. In other words, while team members may test controls and collect evidence, the Lead CCA is accountable for directing the assessment effort and ensuring that remediation evidence supports updated determinations.

CAP v2.0 also states that a QA individual performs a quality assurance review of the POA & M closeout “upon completion by the Assessment Team,” including checks on the accuracy and completeness of evaluation of POA & M security requirements before upload to eMASS. This reinforces that verification occurs through the assessment team’s work, led by the Lead Assessor , and then independently quality-checked by QA.

===========

Understanding SI.L1-3.14.2: Provide Protection from Malicious Code

The CMMC Level 1 practiceSI.L1-3.14.2is based onNIST SP 800-171 Requirement 3.14.2, which requires organizations to:

Implement malicious code protection(e.g., antivirus, endpoint security software).

Ensure coverage across all appropriate locations(e.g., workstations, servers, network entry points).

Keep protection mechanisms updated(e.g., regular signature updates, policy enforcement).

Assessment Criteria for a "MET" Rating:

To determine whether the practice isMET, the Lead Assessor must confirm that:

✔Antivirus or endpoint protection software is installedon all workstations and servers.

✔The solution is centrally managed, ensuring consistent policy enforcement.

✔Signature updates are current, meaning systems are protected against new threats.

✔Logs or reports demonstrate active monitoring and updates.

Why is the Correct Answer "A. It is sufficient, and the audit finding can be rated as MET"?

The provided evidenceconfirms all necessary requirementsfor SI.L1-3.14.2:

✔All workstations and servers have antivirus installed→Meets installation requirement.

✔A centralized management console is in place→Ensures consistent enforcement.

✔Records show antivirus signatures are up to date→Confirms system protection is current.

Because the evidencemeets the requirement, the practice should berated as MET.

Why Are the Other Answers Incorrect?

B. It is insufficient, and the audit finding can be rated NOT MET → Incorrect

The evidence providedmeets all necessary requirements, so the practiceshould not be rated as NOT MET.

C. It is sufficient, and the Lead Assessor should seek more evidence → Incorrect

Ifadequate evidence already exists,additional evidence is unnecessary.

D. It is insufficient, and the Lead Assessor should seek more evidence → Incorrect

The evidence providedmeets the control requirements, making itsufficient.

CMMC 2.0 References Supporting This Answer:

CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) Document

Specifies that a practice can be marked asMET if sufficient evidence is provided.

NIST SP 800-171 (Requirement 3.14.2)

Defines the standard formalicious code protection, which ismet by antivirus with active updates.

CMMC 2.0 Level 1 (Foundational) Requirements

Clarifies that basic cybersecurity measures likeantivirus installation and updatesmeet compliance forSI.L1-3.14.2.

Final Answer:

✔A. It is sufficient, and the audit finding can be rated as MET.

1. Understanding CMMC 2.0 Levels and CUI Handling Requirements

UnderCMMC 2.0, contractors handlingControlled Unclassified Information (CUI)must meet aminimumcertification level to be eligible for contract awards involving CUI.

CMMC 2.0 Levels:

Level 1 (Foundational) – 17 Practices

Covers onlyFederal Contract Information (FCI)security.

Does NOT meet CUI handling requirements.

Level 2 (Advanced) – 110 Practices✅

REQUIRED for handling CUI.

Aligns withNIST SP 800-171, which establishes security controls for protecting CUI.

Contractorsmust achieve Level 2for contracts requiring CUI protection.

Level 3 (Expert) – 110+ Practices

Required for contracts involvinghigh-value CUIandcritical national security information.

Includesadditionalprotections fromNIST SP 800-172.

2. Official CMMC 2.0 References Confirming Level 2 for CUI

TheCMMC 2.0 Model Overviewclearly states that Level 2 is required for contractorshandling CUI.

DFARS 252.204-7012mandates that contractors protecting CUI must implementNIST SP 800-171, which is thefoundation of CMMC Level 2.

TheDoD’s CMMC Assessment Guidefor Level 2 specifies thatorganizations handling CUI must demonstrate full implementation of 110 practices from NIST SP 800-171to qualify for contract awards.

3. Why the Other Options Are Incorrect

A. Level 1❌

Only covers FCI, not CUI.

Does notmeet DoD requirements for protectingCUI.

C. Level 3❌

While Level 3 offersadditional protectionsfor high-risk CUI, it isnot the minimumrequirement.

Level 2 is the minimumneeded to handle CUI.

D. Any level❌

OnlyLevel 2 and higherare eligible for contracts requiring CUI protection.

Level 1 doesnotmeet CUI security standards.

TheCybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0is primarily based on two key National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publications:

NIST SP 800-171– "Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations"

NIST SP 800-172– "Enhanced Security Requirements for Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information: A Supplement to NIST Special Publication 800-171"

Reference and Breakdown:

NIST SP 800-171

This document is thecore foundationof CMMC 2.0 and establishes the security requirements for protectingControlled Unclassified Information (CUI)in non-federal systems.

The 110 security controls fromNIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2are mapped directly toCMMC Level 2.

NIST SP 800-172

This supplement includesenhanced security requirementsfor organizations handlinghigh-value CUIthat faces advanced persistent threats (APTs).

These enhanced requirements apply toCMMC Level 3under the 2.0 model.

Eliminating Incorrect Answer Choices:

B. DFARS, FIPS 100, and NIST SP 800-171→Incorrect

WhileDFARS 252.204-7012mandates compliance withNIST SP 800-171,FIPS 100 does not existas a relevant cybersecurity standard.

C. DFARS, NIST, and Carnegie Mellon University→Incorrect

CMMC is aligned with DFARS and NIST but isnot developed or directly influenced by Carnegie Mellon University.

D. DFARS, FIPS 100, NIST SP 800-171, and Carnegie Mellon University→Incorrect

Again,FIPS 100 is not relevant, andCarnegie Mellon Universityis not a defining entity in the CMMC framework.

Official CMMC 2.0 References Supporting the Answer:

CMMC 2.0 Scoping Guide (2023)confirms thatCMMC Level 2 is entirely based on NIST SP 800-171.

CMMC 2.0 Level 3 Draft Documentationexplicitly referencesNIST SP 800-172for enhanced security requirements.

DoD Interim Rule (DFARS 252.204-7021)mandates that organizations meetNIST SP 800-171 for CUI protection.

Final Conclusion:

The CMMC 2.0 model is derivedsolely from NIST SP 800-171 and NIST SP 800-172, makingAnswer A the only correct choice.

Step 1: Understanding CMMC Level 1 Self-Assessment Scope

CMMC Level 1applies toFederal Contract Information (FCI)systems.

Any system or device that is connected to an FCI-handling network is within the assessment scopebecause it canintroduce vulnerabilitiesinto the environment.

Step 2: Why the Thermostat is in Scope

TheWi-Fi-enabled thermostat is connected to the FCI network, meaning it haspotential accessto sensitive contract-related data.

PerCMMC Scoping Guidance, this type of device is classified as aRestricted Information System (Restricted IS)—devices that do not store, process, or transmit FCI but areconnected to networks that do.

Restricted IS must be accounted for in the self-assessment scope to ensure they do not compromise security controls.