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

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

In the CMMC framework, asset types are categorized based on their role in handling or protecting CUI. The Network Admin manages the next-generation firewall (NGFW), which is a critical component in securing the data flow of CUI between the DoD’s Secure File-Sharing Application and the contractor’s internal systems. Per the CMMC Assessment Scope - Level 2, Security Protection Assets (SPAs) are defined as assets that provide security functions or capabilities to the contractor’s CMMC Assessment Scope, irrespective of whether they directly process, store, or transmit CUI. The Network Admin, by managing the NGFW, fulfills a security protection role, making them an SPA.

Option A (CRMA) applies to assets that can but are not intended to process, store, or transmit CUI due to risk management policies, which does not fit the Network Admin’s active security role. Option C (Specialized Asset) includes items like OT or government-furnished equipment, not personnel. Option D (CUI Asset) applies to assets that directly handle CUI, like the SSD or laptop, not the admin managing security. Thus, B is correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

These laptops and workstations are Contractor Risk Managed Assets (CRMAs), as they can but are not intended to handle CUI due to policies. The CMMC Assessment Scope - Level 2 allows limited spot checks for CRMAs if SSP deficiencies raise concerns, ensuring risks are identified without expanding the assessment’s scope significantly. Option A delays action, Option B shifts responsibility prematurely, and Option D ignores the deficiencies. C is correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The CMMC Level 2 framework requires that all assets within the assessment scope that process, store, or transmit CUI (CUI Assets) or provide security protections (SPAs) be assessed against the full set of 110 CMMC practices derived from NIST SP 800-171. The CMMC Assessment Scope - Level 2 explicitly states that both CUI Assets and SPAs are critical to the security posture and must undergo a comprehensive assessment to ensure compliance with Level 2 requirements. This full assessment ensures that no vulnerabilities are overlooked in assets directly handling or protecting CUI.

Option A is incorrect because a subset of controls does not meet the Level 2 requirement for full compliance. Option B (spot checks) is insufficient for a certification assessment, as it lacks the rigorneeded for Level 2. Option C limits the review to the SSP, which is only one part of the assessment process, not the full evaluation required. Option D aligns with the official guidance.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The CMMC Assessment Scope - Level 2 requires that ESPs providing cybersecurity services (e.g.,as SPAs) to an OSC seeking Level 2 certification must themselves hold a CMMC certification at least equal to the OSC’s target level (Level 2 or higher). This ensures that the ESP’s security practices do not undermine the OSC’s compliance. As a CCA, you must confirm the ESP’s certification status to validate the scope, as outlined in the CMMC CAP.

Option B is insufficient without verification of the ESP’s certification. Option C is unnecessary unless the ESP lacks certification. Option D misapplies self-assessment, which is not a substitute for certification. A is the mandated action.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) tasks the Lead Assessor with validating and refining the OSC’s scope during Phase 1. If the scope is too narrow and assets are miscategorized, the Assessment Team should review the OSC’s environment and categorization to correct inaccuracies collaboratively, ensuring compliance with CMMC requirements. Option B halts prematurely, Option C shifts responsibility without guidance, and Option D is overly prescriptive. A follows the CAP’s iterative validation process.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The Secure File-Sharing Application, provided and managed by the DoD, operates under the government’s authorization boundary, not the contractor’s. The CMMC Assessment Scope - Level 2 excludes assets owned and secured by the government from the OSC’s scope, as they fall outside the contractor’s control. While the contractor uses it to transfer CUI, their responsibility lies in securing their own systems (e.g., NGFW, SSD), not the DoD application. The SSP should document data flow to this application, but it is not assessed as part of the OSC’s scope. Option B applies to contractor-managed CUI assets, Option C to security tools, and Option D to risk-managed assets—all inapplicable here.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) mandates that the OSC provide initial objective evidence, including the SSP, to the Lead Assessor during the scope validation phase (Phase 1). The SSP is critical for defining the assessment scope and verifying asset categorization and security controls, as per practice CA.L2-3.12.4. Refusal or redaction (Options A and C) undermines the assessor’s ability to validate the scope, and there is no provision delaying this until after the assessment begins (Option B). The OSC must furnish the full SSP, though proprietary concerns can be addressed via an NDA if needed, which is not mentioned here.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The CMMC Assessment Scope - Level 2 requires that External Service Provider (ESP) assets, like the cloud-based repository and CI/CD platform, be included in the scope if they process, store, or transmit CUI/FCI (e.g., sensitive code under a DoD contract). Ownership is irrelevant; function dictates inclusion. Option A contradicts this, Option C misaligns boundary and scope definitions, and Option D introduces unnecessary ambiguity. B is correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) allows for assessments of specific enclaves within an organization, defined as a segmented set of system resources sharing a common security perimeter. The CMMC Assessment Scope - Level 2 supports this by permitting the scope to be limited to an enclave if it fully contains the CUI environment and is properly isolated. While a CAGE code and SAM registration are required for the parent organization (the aerospace company), they are not mandated for individual enclaves within that entity. Since the company has these credentials, the assessor can proceed with a Level 2 assessment of the enclave, provided its isolation and security controls are verified.

Option B is incorrect as no rule prohibits enclave-only assessments. Option C is too broad, contradicting segmentation allowances. Option D misapplies level restrictions. A is correct per the CAP and scoping guide.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The CMMC framework allows separate scopes for FCI (Level 1) and CUI (Level 2). Level 2 certification applies only to environments handling CUI, as it requires all 110 practices, whereas Level 1 (17 practices) suffices for FCI alone. The OSC’s CUI scope qualifies for Level 2, while the FCI scope aligns with Level 1 (or a self-assessment). Option C is incorrect, as Level 2 doesn’t apply to FCI-only scopes. Option D lacks evidence of Level 1 non-compliance. B is correct per the scoping guide.