Monthly Archives: July 2023

Moving Towards a Secure Future: The U.S. Government’s Journey to Zero Trust Cybersecurity Principles

Posted on by
Reply

Introduction

With the digital age in full swing, cybersecurity has become a paramount concern for governments worldwide. The U.S. Federal Government is no exception. In fact, it has taken proactive steps towards fortifying its defenses against increasingly sophisticated cyber threats. One such initiative is the adoption of the Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA), a strategy aimed at reinforcing the nation’s defenses against cyber threats.

A Preamble on Zero Trust

The essence of Zero Trust lies in its name – it embodies a principle of ‘never trust, always verify.’ The concept assumes that no user, system, or service, whether inside or outside the security perimeter, is trustworthy. Instead, it insists on continual verification of every attempt to establish access.

The Federal Mandate: Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) Strategy

The U.S. Federal Government, through a memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has set forth a strategic plan to implement the ZTA by the end of Fiscal Year 2024. This move is not only aimed at reinforcing the Government’s defenses against cyber threats but also at mitigating potential damages to the American economy, public safety, privacy, and the trust in Government.

Unfolding the Strategy: The Pillars of Zero Trust

The strategy to implement Zero Trust is based on five complementary areas of effort, referred to as the ‘pillars’ of Zero Trust. These include Identity, Devices, Networks, Applications and Workloads, and Data. Across these areas, three themes cut through – Visibility and Analytics, Automation and Orchestration, and Governance.

Identity: The Basis of Zero Trust

In the Zero Trust model, identity forms the foundation of all security measures. The strategy mandates that agency staff use enterprise-managed identities for accessing the applications necessary for their work. Phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication (MFA) must be implemented for all staff, contractors, and partners. Public-facing systems must also provide phishing-resistant MFA as an option for users.

Devices: Ensuring Security at the Endpoint

The strategy demands that agencies maintain a complete inventory of every device authorized and operated for official business, and have measures in place to prevent, detect, and respond to incidents on those devices.

Networks: From Perimeter-Based to Perimeter-Less Security

In the current threat environment, perimeter-based defenses are no longer sufficient. As part of the Zero Trust model, all traffic, including internal traffic, must be encrypted and authenticated. This implies that agencies need to encrypt all DNS requests and HTTP traffic within their environment.

Applications and Workloads: A New Approach to Security

In the Zero Trust model, applications and workloads are treated as internet-connected entities. Agencies are expected to operate dedicated application security testing programs, and welcome external vulnerability reports for their internet-accessible systems.

Data: The Lifeblood of the Organization

In the context of Zero Trust, agencies are expected to be on a clear, shared path to deploy protections that make use of thorough data categorization. They should take advantage of cloud security services and tools to discover, classify, and protect their sensitive data, and have implemented enterprise-wide logging and information sharing.

A Roadmap to Implementation

The transition to a Zero Trust architecture is neither quick nor easy. It requires a concerted, government-wide effort. To guide this process, each agency is required to develop a Zero Trust architecture roadmap describing how it plans to isolate its applications and environments.

The Role of IPv6

The transition to Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is another critical aspect of the strategy. IPv6 supports enhanced security features and is designed to facilitate seamless integration with the Zero Trust model. It is, therefore, crucial that agencies coordinate the implementation of their IPv6 transition with their migration to a Zero Trust architecture.

The Journey Ahead

The implementation of the Zero Trust model is not an end in itself. It is part of the Federal Government’s broader vision for a secure, resilient, and technologically advanced nation. The journey towards this vision is ongoing. It requires continuous learning, adaptation, and innovation. But with a clear strategy in place and a concerted effort from all stakeholders, the U.S. Federal Government is poised to successfully navigate this journey, ensuring the safety and security of the American people in the digital age.

    The Evolution of NIST SP800-171: What You Need to Know About Revision 3

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Introduction

    In the ever-evolving landscape of cybersecurity, staying up-to-date with the latest frameworks and regulations is crucial to protect sensitive information. One such framework is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, which outlines requirements for protecting controlled unclassified information (CUI). NIST recently released a draft of Revision 3 (Rev. 3) of SP 800-171, introducing significant changes that organizations need to be aware of. In this article, we will delve into the key modifications and additions proposed in Rev. 3 and discuss their potential impact on the defense supply chain and the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.

    The Origins and Purpose of SP 800-171

    To understand the significance of Rev. 3, let’s take a brief look at the origins and purpose of SP 800-171. Initially created in December 2016, SP 800-171 was developed as a derivative of controls and requirements found in Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 200 and NIST SP 800-53. Its purpose was to provide federal agencies with recommended security requirements for protecting CUI when it resides in nonfederal systems and organizations.

    Enhanced Clarity and Specificity

    One of the notable changes introduced in Rev. 3 is the enhanced clarity and specificity of the security requirements. The distinction between “Basic” and “Derived” security requirements, present in previous versions, has been eliminated. Instead, NIST has opted to rely on the requirements of SP 800-53 to enhance the specificity of existing controls. This consolidation allows for a clearer understanding of the controls and simplifies compliance efforts for organizations.

    For example, a requirement in Rev. 2 addressing Media Protection directed contractors to prohibit the use of portable storage devices without an identifiable owner. In Rev. 3, this requirement has been folded into the existing requirement for Media Use, which now allows organizations to either restrict or prohibit the use of organization-defined removable system media. This consolidation and reorganization of requirements aim to streamline compliance efforts and improve the overall effectiveness of the framework.

    Organization-Defined Parameters (ODPs)

    Rev. 3 introduces a new concept called Organization-Defined Parameters (ODPs). While already used in NIST SP 800-53, ODPs are now incorporated into 53 of the 110 Security Requirements in Rev. 3. These parameters allow organizations to define specific elements of a requirement based on their own risk assessment and security needs.

    For instance, in the Access Control requirement, Rev. 2 simply stated to limit unsuccessful logon attempts. In Rev. 3, this requirement includes ODPs, specifying that organizations should limit the number of consecutive invalid logon attempts by a user within an organization-defined time period. This addition of ODPs enhances flexibility in meeting the requirements while ensuring that organizations address the specific security needs of their systems.

    Encryption Is Now an ODP

    The use of encryption to protect the confidentiality of CUI has always been a critical requirement. However, Rev. 3 introduces an ODP approach to encryption, providing organizations with the flexibility to choose the types of cryptography that best suit their needs. Previously, Rev. 2 mandated the use of FIPS-validated cryptography. However, based on feedback received during the comment period, NIST has revised this requirement.

    In Rev. 3, organizations are now required to implement organization-defined types of cryptography to protect the confidentiality of CUI. This change allows organizations to tailor their cryptographic solutions based on their risk assessments and specific security requirements. While this flexibility is welcomed, organizations should ensure that their chosen cryptography aligns with industry best practices and provides an adequate level of protection.

    Policies and Procedures Are Required

    Another significant change in Rev. 3 is the explicit requirement for organizations to establish and maintain policies and procedures. While previous versions of SP 800-171 assumed the existence of these policies and procedures, Rev. 3 now mandates their implementation. This change aims to ensure that organizations have documented processes and guidelines in place to support their cybersecurity programs.

    Organizations should review their current policies and procedures to ensure they align with the new requirements. This includes policies and procedures for each security family, rules of behavior, and acceptable use policies. Additionally, organizations should ensure that external system service providers comply with their security requirements, as this is now explicitly stated in Rev. 3.

    Software Producers and MSPs Beware

    With the increasing reliance on software and managed service providers (MSPs), Rev. 3 addresses the need to manage supply chain risks and ensure the security of system components. The new requirements in Rev. 3 include a focus on supply chain risk management and the development or acquisition of new system components.

    These additions align with the growing concerns around software vulnerabilities and the need to ensure the integrity of the supply chain. Organizations should be prepared to assess and mitigate supply chain risks and consider the inclusion of software and firmware development processes in their cybersecurity programs. Stay informed about upcoming rules and regulations, such as Software Bills of Materials, to ensure compliance with the evolving cybersecurity landscape.

    Navigating the Changes: A Proposed Approach

    With the release of the Rev. 3 draft, organizations must understand the changes and begin planning for their adoption. To effectively navigate the modifications, a systematic approach can be employed:

    1. Review the Change Analysis: NIST has provided a change analysis document that highlights the differences between Rev. 2 and Rev. 3. Start by reviewing this document to gain an understanding of the key changes.
    2. Identify Significant Changes: Focus on the requirements that have been identified as significant changes in the change analysis document. These changes may require more attention and adjustment in your cybersecurity program.
    3. Assess Existing SSPs and SPRS/800-171A Assessments: Evaluate your existing System Security Plans (SSPs) and Security and Privacy Requirements Scoping Tool (SPRS)/800-171A Assessments to determine if they are prepared for the pending changes. Identify any gaps and develop a plan to address them.
    4. Implement Organization-Defined Parameters: Take advantage of the flexibility offered by ODPs. Assess your organization’s risk tolerance and define parameters that align with your specific needs. Ensure that your SSPs reflect these defined parameters.
    5. Address Supply Chain Risk Management: Review your supply chain management processes and identify areas that require improvement to mitigate supply chain risks. Consider the inclusion of software and firmware development processes in your cybersecurity program.
    6. Update Policies and Procedures: Review and update your policies and procedures to align with the explicit requirement in Rev. 3. Ensure that you have documented processes for each security family, rules of behavior, and acceptable use policies.
    7. Prepare for Independent Assessments: Start planning for independent assessments of your control implementation. This includes conducting internal audits or engaging independent resources to assess compliance with the requirements.
    8. Maintain Awareness of Updates: Stay informed about the progress of Rev. 3 and the finalization of the framework. Monitor official guidance from NIST and other relevant authorities to ensure ongoing compliance with the latest requirements.

    The Impact on DoD’s Cyber Initiatives

    Many organizations wonder how the release of Rev. 3 will affect the DoD’s CMMC program and related efforts. DFARS 252.204-7012 requires contractors to comply with the current version of NIST SP 800-171. This means that, theoretically, contractors could be required to comply with Rev. 3 once it is finalized.

    To address this potential scenario, DoD is expected to issue guidance outlining the phased implementation of Rev. 3’s requirements across the defense supply chain. This guidance will help contractors align their compliance efforts accordingly. While some coordination challenges may arise, it is crucial for organizations to adapt to the changes and ensure compliance with both Rev. 3 and existing requirements to avoid any conflicts.

    How vCISO Services Can Help

    As the changes introduced in Rev. 3 become a reality for organizations, seeking assistance from experienced professionals can alleviate the burden of compliance. Atlantic Digital, a leading provider of vCISO services, offers expertise in navigating the complexities of cybersecurity frameworks like NIST SP 800-171.

    With Atlantic Digital’s vCISO services, organizations can benefit from strategic guidance and support in implementing the necessary changes to meet Rev. 3’s requirements. Their team of dedicated professionals can assess your current cybersecurity program, develop tailored solutions, and provide ongoing advisory services to ensure ongoing compliance.

    Conclusion

    As organizations brace themselves for the release of NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3, it is crucial to understand the proposed changes and their implications. The consolidation of requirements, the introduction of ODPs, and the emphasis on supply chain risk management reflect the evolving cybersecurity landscape.

    By staying informed, conducting thorough assessments, and seeking support from experts like Atlantic Digital, organizations can navigate the complexities of Rev. 3 and ensure the continued protection of sensitive information. Embrace the changes, adapt your cybersecurity programs, and embrace the opportunity to enhance your security posture in the face of evolving threats.

    Additional Information: Atlantic Digital can help as these changes become reality for your organization with our vCISO services. With our expertise and comprehensive approach, we can guide your organization through the complexities of NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 and ensure compliance while enhancing your overall cybersecurity posture. Contact us today to learn more about how our vCISO services can support your organization.

    Decoding the Cloud: Unraveling the Differences Between IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS

    Posted on by
    Reply

    ‍

    Introduction to Cloud Computing

    Hello there! I see you’ve stumbled upon my little corner of the internet. Today, we’re going to chat about something that has been buzzing around the tech world like a swarm of over-caffeinated bees: cloud computing. Now, don’t let the jargon scare you away. We’re going to break it down into bite-sized pieces, just like Grandma’s apple pie.

    In the simplest terms, cloud computing is storing and accessing data and programs over the internet instead of your computer’s hard drive. Now, don’t get me wrong. It’s not about your hard drive. You’re not managing hardware and software—that’s the responsibility of an experienced vendor like salesforce.com, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and IBM. The shared infrastructure they manage is a cloud.

    Now, why is it called ‘cloud computing’? Well, the name comes from the use of a cloud-shaped symbol to represent the complexity of the infrastructure it contains in system diagrams. Cloud computing is an internet-based computing solution where resources are shared rather than having local servers or personal devices handling applications.

    Understanding On-Premises Applications vs Cloud Applications

    Now, let’s talk about the difference between on-premises and cloud applications. For a non-cloud application, we own and manage all the hardware and software. We say the application is on-premises. You might remember the good old days when every piece of software needed its dedicated server (and the server room that looked like the inside of a spaceship). But with cloud computing, things are a tad bit different.

    Cloud applications (or cloud apps) are software applications where the servers and the software are not installed in your business premises but are in a remote data center run by a cloud services provider. This provider takes responsibility for the software and its maintenance, leaving you free to focus on your business without worrying about IT-related issues.

    With cloud computing, cloud service vendors provide three kinds of models for us to use: IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS. If you’re scratching your head, don’t worry! We’ll get to what these abbreviations mean shortly.

    Understanding Cloud Service Models: IaaS, PaaS, SaaS

    Alright, get ready for some more acronyms, because we’re about to dive into the different types of cloud service models: Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS). These might sound like a mouthful, but they’re not as complex as they sound. Trust me, I’m a teacher.

    IaaS provides us access to cloud vendors’ infrastructure, like servers, storage, and networking. We pay for the infrastructure service and install and manage supporting software on it for our application. It’s like renting a house and bringing your furniture.

    Next up is PaaS. If IaaS is renting a house and furnishing it yourself, then PaaS is like renting a fully furnished house. PaaS goes further. It provides a platform with a variety of pre-configured features that you can use to develop, run, and manage applications without the complexity of building and maintaining the infrastructure.

    Last but not least, we have SaaS. This is like a hotel room service – you rent the software and use it through an internet connection. You don’t have to worry about installation, set-up, and daily upkeep and maintenance.

    In-depth Analysis: Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)

    Let’s begin our in-depth analysis with IaaS. As we’ve already discussed, IaaS provides the infrastructure such as virtual machines and other resources like virtual-machine disk image library, block and file-based storage, firewalls, load balancers, IP addresses, virtual local area networks etc. These resources are provided in a virtualized environment, so they can be easily scaled up or down according to business requirements.

    Common examples of IaaS platforms include Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud Platform, and Microsoft Azure. In IaaS, you rent the hardware, and you have the freedom to install any software and configuration. It offers high flexibility and control over your infrastructure but also puts the responsibility of managing everything on your shoulders.

    In-depth Analysis: Platform as a Service (PaaS)

    Now, let’s move on to PaaS. Here, the cloud provider gives you not only infrastructure but also middleware, development tools, business intelligence (BI) services, database management systems, and more. PaaS is used by developers who want to create web or mobile apps without setting up or managing the underlying infrastructure of servers, storage, network, and databases needed for development.

    You might have heard of Heroku, Google App Engine, or even Salesforce. These are examples of PaaS. It provides a platform and environment to allow developers to build applications and services over the internet. PaaS services are hosted in the cloud and accessed by users simply via their web browser.

    In-depth Analysis: Software as a Service (SaaS)

    Lastly, let’s talk about our dear friend SaaS. Here, the cloud provider hosts and manages the software application and underlying infrastructure and handles any maintenance, like software upgrades and security patching. Users connect to the application over the Internet, usually with a web browser on their phone, tablet, or PC.

    Examples of SaaS applications are plentiful: Google Apps, Salesforce, Dropbox, and more. SaaS is a popular choice for businesses that want to implement an application quickly, with minimal upfront costs. Plus, the pay-as-you-go model is quite attractive to many businesses.

    Comparing IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS: Key Differences

    Now that we’ve got the basics down, let’s look at the key differences between IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS. The most significant difference lies in what each service is essentially responsible for.

    IaaS gives you the highest level of flexibility and management control over your IT resources. PaaS builds on the IaaS model by also including the operating systems, middleware, and runtime environment, while SaaS provides a complete software solution that you purchase on a pay-as-you-go basis from a cloud service provider.

    How to Choose the Right Cloud Service Model for Your Business

    Choosing the right cloud service model for your business depends on your specific needs. Are you a small business looking for an easy software solution? SaaS might be the right pick. Are you a growing business that needs more control over your applications? PaaS could be your best bet. Or maybe you’re a large enterprise that needs a massive amount of storage and power, in which case IaaS might be the way to go.

    Remember, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer here. The best cloud service model for your business depends on your unique needs, resources, and technical expertise.

    Transitioning from On-Premises to Cloud: Steps and Considerations

    Transitioning from on-premises to the cloud can seem like a daunting task, but with careful planning, the process can be smooth and beneficial. The first step is understanding your business’s specific needs and how a cloud service can meet those needs.

    Next, you’ll need to choose a cloud service model that fits your business’s needs. Then, you’ll need to plan your migration strategy, which could include moving data, applications, and other business elements to the cloud.

    Finally, you’ll need to monitor your cloud service regularly to ensure it’s meeting your business’s needs and adjust as necessary.

    Conclusion: The Future of Cloud Services

    So, there you have it. We’ve decoded the differences between IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS, and hopefully, you’re a bit more comfortable with these concepts. As we move forward, the cloud’s future looks promising, with new technologies and innovations on the horizon.

    Remember, the cloud isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather a flexible tool that can be tailored to your business’s unique needs. So whether you’re a small business owner, a tech giant, or someone in between, there’s a cloud service model out there for you.

    Happy cloud surfing!

    SEC Final Rules on Cybersecurity: A Comprehensive Analysis

    Posted on by
    Reply

    ‍
    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently released its long-anticipated final rules on cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and governance. This monumental development has generated widespread discussion within the corporate world.

    In this article, we’ll decode these rules, their implications for boardroom accountability, and their potential impact on cybersecurity governance reform. Buckle up, as we dive into the intricate world of SEC regulations and cybersecurity.

    1. An Overview of the SEC’s Cybersecurity Rules

    The SEC’s final rules on cybersecurity are robust and transformational in many respects. However, they have raised eyebrows for letting the boardroom off the hook for cybersecurity governance accountability, at least for now.

    1.1. The Proposal for Director Cyber Expertise

    The SEC proposed a rule that would require boards to disclose if they have a director with cybersecurity expertise. This proposal aimed to increase transparency about the abilities of corporate directors to govern this complex area.

    1.2. The Shortcoming

    Unfortunately, this proposal was not adopted. As a result, Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) lack regulatory support for an experienced advocate in the boardroom. This increases the job difficulty and accountability of CISOs.

    2. The Impact on Management Teams

    The SEC amplified the pressure on management teams to understand the linkages between cybersecurity, their information systems, and their value in the eyes of a reasonable investor.

    2.1. Incident Disclosure Requirement

    The SEC introduced an incident disclosure requirement that triggers based on the impact of the incident and its materiality. Previously, this requirement was triggered upon incident discovery.

    2.2. The Scope of the Disclosure

    The disclosure focuses on the impact, not the nature of the incident. This approach aims to prevent providing valuable information to attackers. Furthermore, the SEC introduced a delay in disclosure if it is in the interest of national security or public safety.

    3. The Role of Third-Party Systems

    The SEC final rules stipulate the disclosure of cybersecurity incidents involving third-party systems that companies use. This new provision puts a challenging systemic risk disclosure requirement in place for the first time.

    4. The Definition of a Cybersecurity Incident

    The definition of a cybersecurity incident, as discussed in the SEC Open Meeting, is an unauthorized occurrence. This implies that inherent risks realized from within the system would not need to be disclosed.

    5. Increased Transparency and Accountability

    The final rules retain a disclosure requirement around the use of third-party experts in cybersecurity. This aims to provide more transparency regarding in-house versus outsourced capabilities for investors.

    6. The Boardroom’s Role

    The SEC did not entirely exempt the boardroom from the final rules. However, they did remove the requirement of disclosing how the board integrates cybersecurity into its business strategy, risk management, and financial oversight.

    7. The Importance of Investors

    Now that the SEC has established some rules, investors will play a pivotal role in cybersecurity governance reform. As they interact more with boards on these issues, they might exert more influence and drive reforms.

    8. The Future of Cybersecurity and Board Reform

    The SEC’s final rules are seen as the first steps on a crucial journey. Despite the softened stance on boardroom accountability, the need for management to understand the impacts of digital business systems remains.

    9. The Role of Lawmakers

    Lawmakers are not giving up on director cyber expertise. An example is S. 808 Cybersecurity Disclosure Act of 2021, which would compel the SEC to issue final rules on boardroom cyber expertise.

    10. Final Thoughts

    While the SEC’s final rules have sparked a crucial conversation about boardroom accountability in cybersecurity governance, they also underscore the need for individual corporate boards to take self-regulatory initiatives. As we move forward, the role of investors and lawmakers in shaping cybersecurity governance reform will be crucial.

    So, there you have it! A comprehensive breakdown of the SEC’s final rules on cybersecurity. As always, it’s important to remember that regulation is just one piece of the cybersecurity puzzle. Whether you’re a CISO, a board member or an investor, the ultimate responsibility for cybersecurity lies with you. Here’s to safer, more secure digital futures for us all!

    Understanding the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Atlantic Digital vCISO Services

    ‍
    In today’s digital age, the threat of data breaches and cyberattacks is ever-present. This is especially true for organizations operating in the United States defense space, where the protection of sensitive information is of paramount importance. The Department of Defense (DoD) recognizes the need to ensure that the companies responsible for our nation’s most advanced technologies have the ability to safeguard them from unauthorized or improper use. To address this, the DoD has implemented the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) as a compliance requirement for defense contractors.

    The Purpose of CMMC

    The CMMC is a systemic attempt to apply security best practices that have been evolving for over two decades in sectors such as finance and healthcare to the unique characteristics of the defense industrial base. It aims to protect sensitive unclassified defense information from unauthorized access, disclosure, or theft. By implementing the CMMC, the DoD intends to ensure that contractors and suppliers have adequate cybersecurity measures in place to safeguard sensitive national security information.

    The Evolution of CMMC

    CMMC has undergone several iterations to enhance its effectiveness and align with accepted cybersecurity standards. The latest version, CMMC 2.0, streamlines requirements and introduces a three-level framework that aligns with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cybersecurity standards.

    Level 1 – Foundational

    At Level 1, organizations are required to meet 15 foundational requirements. This level involves an annual self-assessment and affirmation of compliance. It sets the groundwork for establishing basic cybersecurity practices and serves as a starting point for organizations aiming to enhance their security posture.

    Level 2 – Advanced

    Level 2 builds upon the foundational requirements of Level 1 and introduces 100 additional requirements aligned with NIST SP 800-171. This level necessitates a triennial third-party assessment and an annual affirmation of compliance. Organizations at Level 2 are expected to implement more advanced security measures to protect controlled unclassified information (CUI).

    Level 3 – Expert

    Level 3 represents the highest level of cybersecurity maturity in the CMMC framework. It encompasses over 110 requirements based on NIST SP 800-171 and 800-172. Level 3 requires a triennial government-led assessment and an annual affirmation of compliance. Organizations at this level must demonstrate expertise in implementing advanced security controls to protect CUI and safeguard critical defense information.

    The Relationship between NIST and CMMC

    The CMMC requirements are closely tied to the NIST cybersecurity standards. Contractors must undergo self-assessments or third-party assessments to determine compliance with the applicable NIST standard. The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause states that basic safeguarding requirements for CMMC Level 1 compliance. Under CMMC 2.0, a Level 2 assessment is conducted against the NIST SP 800-171 standard, while a Level 3 assessment is based on a subset of NIST SP 800-172 requirements.

    Certifying Compliance with CMMC

    Certifications for CMMC compliance must be provided by independent CMMC auditors known as C3PAOs or CMMC Assessors. These organizations evaluate defense contractors’ cybersecurity practices and determine whether they meet the required level of cybersecurity controls specified by the CMMC framework. The goal is to ensure that contractors and suppliers handling sensitive defense information have robust cybersecurity measures in place to protect against unauthorized access, disclosure, or theft.

    How We Can Help

    Navigating the complexities of CMMC compliance can be daunting for organizations in the defense industry. At Atlantic Digital, we specialize in assisting organizations with CMMC compliance and elevating their cybersecurity practices. Our team of professional CMMC assessors is well-versed in the CMMC process and can guide your organization in meeting the required cybersecurity controls. We understand the importance of protecting sensitive information and are committed to helping you secure your organization and ensure compliance with the CMMC framework.

    Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you navigate the CMMC compliance process and strengthen your cybersecurity posture.