Pass the Cyber AB CMMC CMMC-CCA Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

Practice AC.L2-3.1.3 requires that users are presented with privacy and security notices (system use notifications) at the point of system log-in to ensure that they are aware of authorized usage and monitoring.

Extract:

“Display privacy and security notices (system use notifications) before granting system access.”

Posters, alerts, or general awareness messages do not satisfy this practice because they are not tied directly to system access.

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.

The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) provides explicit guidance for readiness reviews. If the Lead Assessor determines that the OSC is not prepared, the available options are:

Replan the assessment (adjust scope, timeline, or requirements), or

Reschedule the assessment (move the engagement to a later date).

Extract:

“Following the readiness review, if the OSC is determined not to be ready, the Lead Assessor may recommend that the assessment be replanned or rescheduled.”

Thus, the correct answer is B.

The control PS.L2-3.9.1: Screen Individuals requires that individuals be screened before authorizing access to organizational systems and CUI. Since employees are assigned to work immediately upon hire, before screenings are complete, this practice is NOT MET. Completing screenings within the first week does not satisfy the requirement.

Exact extracts:

“Screen individuals prior to authorizing access to organizational systems containing CUI.”

“Assessment Objectives … Determine if: [a] individuals requiring access to CUI are screened before access is granted.”

“It is not sufficient for screening to occur after access has been authorized.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: Remediation may be possible, but scoring must be NOT MET.

B: A single practice being NOT MET does not automatically cause assessment failure (depends on aggregate score).

C: HR responsibility does not excuse failure to complete screening before granting access.

Applicable Requirement: AC.L2-3.1.12 and AC.L2-3.1.14 — “Monitor and control remote access sessions” and “Route remote access through managed access control points.”

Why A is Correct: For a single centralized access point, the most critical control is that remote access sessions are properly secured and monitored to prevent unauthorized access to CUI systems. This ensures both confidentiality and integrity of remote connections.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

B: Physical access controls protect on-site systems but do not address remote connection security.

C: Documentation alone is not sufficient; actual monitoring and security enforcement are required.

D: Notification procedures relate to incident handling, not adequacy of access point security.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — AC.L2-3.1.12, AC.L2-3.1.14

NIST SP 800-171A — Remote Access Assessment Objectives

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, Remote Access Guidance

Acceptable physical safeguards in lieu of encryption (in limited cases) include trusted couriers, locked containers, and monitored physical transport. “Tamper protection technologies” are not recognized as an acceptable alternative safeguard for protecting CUI in transit.

Extract:

“Physical safeguards such as trusted couriers, locked containers, and controlled site monitoring may substitute for cryptographic protections when encryption is not feasible. Other measures not defined (e.g., tamper protection) do not satisfy the requirement.”

Thus, D is NOT an acceptable safeguard.

The Shared Responsibility Matrix (Customer Responsibility Matrix) is a key artifact in CMMC assessments involving MSPs or cloud service providers. It defines what security responsibilities belong to the OSC and which belong to the service provider. To evaluate the MSP’s impact, the assessor must review this matrix to understand boundaries of responsibility for CUI protection.

Exact extracts:

“When external service providers are included in the assessment boundary, organizations must provide documentation that specifies security responsibilities.”

“A Shared Responsibility Matrix (or Customer Responsibility Matrix) defines which controls are implemented by the OSC versus the external provider.”

“Assessors should request and review this matrix to understand division of responsibilities.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: Onsite MSP staff presence does not clarify responsibility for security controls.

C: Reviewing classification helps, but it does not explain responsibility allocation.

D: Policies/org charts do not establish shared control responsibilities.

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.

Both the OSC’s on-premise LAN room and the leased colocation data center are in-scope because they contain systems that process, store, or transmit CUI. Assessors must physically examine visitor and access controls at both locations to confirm compliance with PE practices.

Exact Extracts:

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

PE.L2-3.10.3: “Escort visitors and monitor visitor activity.”

CMMC Assessment Guide: “Assessors must validate physical protections at all in-scope facilities where CUI assets reside.”

CMMC Scoping Guide: “Physical protection applies to all facilities within the CMMC Assessment Scope, including colocation facilities.”

Why the other options are not correct:

A/B: Reviewing only one facility is insufficient; both are in scope.

D: Customer relationship management reviews are not substitutes for physical examination by assessors.

The CAP requires that the OSC provide an organized and traceable set of evidence for review. While missing an evidence map does not stop the assessment, it is a best practice and strongly recommended to improve efficiency.

Extract:

“The OSC should provide an organized list of evidence and mappings to support efficient review by the assessment team. While not strictly required, it is recommended as part of readiness for a Level 2 assessment.”

Thus, the Lead Assessor should advise the OSC to provide the evidence mapping list, but the absence does not invalidate proceeding.