Cyber AB CMMC-CCA Certified CMMC Assessor (CCA) Exam Exam Practice Test

The Shared Responsibility Matrix (Customer Responsibility Matrix) is the authoritative document that specifies which security responsibilities are owned by the OSC versus the Cloud Service Provider (CSP). This enables assessors to determine which CMMC practices apply to the OSC and which are inherited from the provider.

Exact extracts:

“External Service Providers (ESPs), including CSPs, must provide a Shared Responsibility Matrix that delineates customer versus provider responsibilities.”

“Assessors should request and review this matrix to determine practice applicability.”

Why other options are incorrect:

A: Zero Trust Architecture is a design framework, not a responsibility breakdown.

C: White papers are marketing/technical resources, not binding assignments of responsibility.

D: IAM Plans address access management, not overall shared responsibilities.

Applicable Requirement: CM.L2-3.4.1 — “Establish and maintain baseline configurations and inventories of organizational systems (including hardware, software, firmware, and documentation) throughout the respective system development life cycles.”

Why C is Correct: Baseline management requires documenting and tracking authorized deviations to ensure systems remain consistent with approved baselines. Evidence must show the OSC manages exceptions as part of its configuration management process.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A: Physical safeguards protect images but do not demonstrate baseline management.

B: Reviews may be helpful, but deviations are explicitly required documentation.

D: Chain of custody applies to asset tracking, not baseline management.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — CM.L2-3.4.1

NIST SP 800-171A — CM.L2-3.4.1 Assessment Objectives

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, Baseline Configurations

===========

The CMMC Scoping Guidance allows assets to be classified as Out-of-Scope if:

They are physically/logically isolated, and

They cannot process, store, or transmit CUI.

Extract:

“Out-of-Scope assets are those that cannot process, store, or transmit CUI and are physically or logically separated from CUI assets.”

The VESDA system only monitors environmental conditions and does not interact with CUI. Its segregation supports an out-of-scope classification.

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.

Applicable Requirement: PE.L2-3.10.3 — “Control physical access to organizational systems, equipment, and operating environments.”

Why D is Correct: Escort requirements are met as long as the visitor’s actions are continuously observed and controlled. The escort does not need to be physically inside the same room if direct observation is possible.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A: Escort posture (sitting/standing) is irrelevant.

B: Same-room presence is not required by CMMC/NIST SP 800-171.

C: A single entry point helps, but observation is the requirement.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — PE.L2-3.10.3

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2 — Physical Escort Policy Guidance

===========

Least privilege requires users to perform privileged functions only with privileged accounts and to use their basic (non-privileged) accounts for general activity. This prevents unnecessary exposure of elevated rights and limits attack surfaces. Database Administrators must use their DBA accounts only for DBA tasks, and all users must use their basic accounts for non-privileged tasks.

Exact Extracts:

AC.L2-3.1.5: “Employ the principle of least privilege, including for specific security functions and privileged accounts.”

Assessment Objectives: Require separate accounts for privileged and non-privileged activities.

Assessment Guide Clarification: “Privileged accounts should be used only for privileged functions; standard accounts must be used for all other activities.”

Why the other options are not correct:

B: States “non-privileged users use their basic account” but does not explicitly require all users (including admins) to use their basic account for non-privileged tasks.

C/D: Incorrectly assign System Administrator accounts to Database Administrators, which violates least privilege (admins must only have the access needed for their role).

Applicable Requirement: SC.L2-3.13.16 — “Protect the confidentiality of CUI at rest.”

Why D is Correct: Cryptographic mechanisms (e.g., full-disk encryption, database encryption, file encryption) provide the strongest protection for information at rest by preventing unauthorized disclosure if systems or media are accessed.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A (Patching): Protects against vulnerabilities, but not specific to data-at-rest confidentiality.

B (File share): Provides a storage method, not protection.

C (Secure offline storage): Helps physically, but not sufficient for digital confidentiality without encryption.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — SC.L2-3.13.16

NIST SP 800-171A — SC.L2-3.13.16 Assessment Objectives

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, Data at Rest Protection

===========

The Scoping Guidance defines Security Protection Assets as systems, tools, or services that provide security functions protecting CUI assets, even if outsourced to third parties.

Extract:

“Security Protection Assets are tools, systems, or services that provide security functionality (e.g., SOC, antivirus, logging) to protect CUI assets. These must be included in scope.”

Therefore, SOC and AV must be categorized as Security Protection Assets.

The CMMC Scoping Guidance specifies that Contractor Risk Managed Assets must:

Be documented in the asset inventory,

Be governed by the organization’s own risk-based policies and procedures,

Be included in the system boundary/network diagram.

Extract:

“Contractor Risk Managed Assets are those managed according to the OSC’s risk-based policies and procedures. They must be documented in the asset inventory and represented in the system boundary.”

Thus, option C is the best answer.

The test assessment method means the assessor actively exercises or stimulates the system (or object) under defined conditions to compare actual results with expected behavior. This goes beyond review or observation and involves hands-on validation.

Exact Extracts:

NIST SP 800-171A: “The test method is the process of exercising assessment objects under specified conditions to compare actual with expected behavior.”

CMMC Assessment Guide: “Testing requires assessors to observe the execution of functions, mechanisms, or activities to confirm effectiveness.”

Why the other options are not correct:

A: This defines Examine (not Test).

B: This aligns with Interview or compliance review, not Test.

D: This is a generic definition but does not capture the essence of Test (direct execution under conditions).

System baselines are part of Configuration Management (CM). Maintaining an inventory of hardware and software is important, but the evidence of managing baselines lies in the configuration management process, which establishes and documents standard system configurations, approved software, and change control. The CMMC practice CM.L2-3.4.1 requires the OSC to establish and maintain baseline configurations.

Exact extracts:

“Baseline configurations are documented, formally reviewed, and maintained as part of configuration management.”

“Assessment Objectives … Determine if: baseline configurations are established; baseline configurations are maintained.”

“Potential Assessment Methods – Examine: configuration management policy; documented baseline configuration; inventory of system components.”

Expanded explanation:

Hardware/software lists show what exists, but without baseline control they do not demonstrate effective management.

Configuration management evidence includes: CM policies, baselines for operating systems, software versions, patch levels, and configuration checklists.

This ensures that unauthorized changes or unapproved software do not deviate from the security posture.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A (Media protection): Relates to storage devices and handling, not baselines.

B (Physical protection): Relates to facility and hardware security, not configuration.

D (Identification and authentication policy): Addresses user access, not baseline configuration.

CMMC requires physical access to systems containing or transmitting CUI to be limited to authorized individuals and for access records to be maintained. Badge readers with unique identification provide individual accountability, access control enforcement, and auditable access logs, which are stronger than labels, cameras, or keypads.

Exact Extracts:

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

PE.L2-3.10.5: “Maintain audit logs of physical access.”

CMMC Assessment Guide: “Badge systems with access control lists and logs are considered a best method for meeting physical access requirements.”

Why the other options are not correct:

A: Labels and lists do not prevent unauthorized access.

C: Cameras monitor but do not restrict access; they are detective, not preventive.

D: Keypads do not provide individual accountability (codes can be shared).

During the planning phase, the Lead Assessor must ensure that evidence gaps are identified and documented before assessment execution. This ensures that the OSC is aware of missing or insufficient evidence and can address them prior to final scoring.

Exact Extracts:

CMMC Assessment Guide: “During planning, assessors and OSC should confirm sufficiency of evidence and identify/document any evidence gaps.”

“The planning phase ensures readiness to proceed with the assessment, including identifying gaps and establishing how they will be addressed.”

Why the other options are not correct:

B: Appeals are addressed post-assessment, not in planning.

C: Assessment costs are agreed upon contractually, not part of the assessment planning phase.

D: FedRAMP equivalency determination is part of scope validation, not general planning.

Logical separation refers to the use of technical and access control mechanisms (e.g., role-based access, IAM tools, VLANs) to enforce boundaries between different users, roles, or networks. In contrast, physical separation relies on distinct hardware or physical barriers. Role-based access control within an IAM solution is a textbook example of logical separation, and it is specifically called out in the CMMC/NIST context.

Exact extracts:

“Logical separation may be achieved through the use of virtualization, encryption, or access control mechanisms such as role-based access controls.”

“Assessment Objectives … Determine if: • separation of users and information types is enforced by physical or logical means.”

“Logical separation is implemented using technical solutions such as access control lists, firewalls configured by policy, or identity and access management solutions.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

A (Data loss alerting): This is monitoring, not separation.

B (Badge access): This is a physical access control, not logical separation.

D (Proxy-configured firewall): This is boundary protection/traffic control; depending on setup it may be physical or logical, but the scenario points to role-based IAM as the logical example.

References (CCA documents / Study Guide):

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, SC.L2-3.13.6 “Network Separation.”

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2, 3.13.6.

The Escort Visitors practice falls under Physical and Environmental Protection (PE.L2-3.10.3), which requires organizations to escort visitors and monitor visitor activity. To validate this, the assessor should interview personnel responsible for physical access control (security guards, facility access managers) and information security (to confirm integration with CUI protection requirements).

Exact Extracts:

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

Assessment Guide: “Interview personnel responsible for physical access control and security monitoring to confirm escort and visitor activity tracking.”

Assessment Objectives: Require evidence of visitor escorts, visitor logs, and monitoring practices.

Why the other options are not correct:

A (Repair/maintenance): Not responsible for escort procedures.

B (Local access control only): Missing the information security link, which ensures visitors cannot access CUI assets.

D (IT management): IT is not responsible for escorting visitors in physical spaces.

The Physical Protection (PE) requirements require that systems containing FCI or CUI be placed in controlled-access facilities with safeguards against unauthorized physical access.

Extract from PE.L2-3.10.1:

“Limit physical access to organizational information systems, equipment, and the respective operating environments to authorized individuals.”

Thus, ensuring that the VMs run on hardware located in a controlled-access facility is the correct method to meet physical security requirements.

Applicable Requirement (CAP – Evidence Validity): Evidence must be relevant, reliable, and timely. Artifacts from separate entities or outdated sources require extra scrutiny.

Why D is Correct: The least reliable evidence is old (18 months) and produced by individuals not part of the OSC entity being assessed. Such artifacts require the most verification to determine applicability.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A: Strongest evidence (current and from OSC staff).

B: Outdated, but still from OSC staff (more reliable than outside entity).

C: Current, but external (still stronger than outdated + external).

References (CCA Official Sources):

CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0 — Evidence Collection and Reliability Criteria

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2 — Acceptable Evidence

===========

To validate separation of CUI systems from non-CUI systems on a local network, the assessor must evaluate the VLAN configuration. VLANs are a recognized logical segmentation method for separating enclaves, as defined in the CMMC Scoping Guide.

Exact Extracts:

CMMC Scoping Guide: “Isolation can be achieved by implementing subnetworks with firewalls, routers, and VLANs to ensure separation of CUI assets from out-of-scope assets.”

“CUI Assets must be isolated from non-CUI assets unless those non-CUI assets are designated as Security Protection Assets or Contractor Risk Managed Assets.”

Why other options are not correct:

A (WAN): Wide Area Networks describe external connectivity, not local separation.

B (VPN): VPN provides encrypted remote access but does not enforce local network segmentation.

D (NAT): NAT provides IP translation, not logical separation of traffic.

To verify compliance with AC.L2-3.1.5 (Least Privilege), the assessor must confirm that privileged accounts are not used for routine or non-privileged tasks. Asking if a user uses their privileged account for tasks like researching vulnerabilities on the Internet directly tests whether the principle of least privilege is being followed.

Exact Extracts:

AC.L2-3.1.5: “Employ the principle of least privilege, including for specific security functions and privileged accounts.”

CMMC Assessment Guide: “Interviews should confirm that privileged accounts are used exclusively for privileged functions, and that standard accounts are used for general tasks.”

NIST SP 800-171A Objective: “Determine through interviews whether users employ privileged accounts for non-privileged tasks.”

Why other options are not correct:

A: Awareness of other privileged users is not the issue being assessed.

B: Knowledge of RBAC is useful but does not confirm account usage practices.

D: Provisioning procedures are an IT staff responsibility, not a user behavior check.

The Lead Assessor’s readiness checks focus on logistics, scope, evidence availability, and risk awareness to ensure the assessment can proceed. It is not the assessor’s role to advise or determine if the OSC could achieve a higher certification level — the OSC selects its target level.

Exact extracts:

“Lead Assessors must confirm readiness by verifying logistics, scope boundaries, risks, and evidence availability.”

“Assessors do not advise OSCs on selecting certification levels or alternative approaches; this is outside the assessment scope.”

Why the other options are required:

A: OSC risks must be identified and discussed as part of scoping.

B: Logistics (scheduling, facilities, communications) must be confirmed.

D: Evidence must be available and accessible to avoid delays.

Applicable Requirement: IR.L2-3.6.1 — “Establish an operational incident-handling capability for organizational systems that includes preparation, detection, analysis, containment, recovery, and user response activities.”

Validation Expectation: For this practice, the CCA must confirm that the OSC:

Tracks incidents consistently,

Documents incident details (who, what, when, where, and how), and

Maintains incident records to support analysis and corrective action.

Why A is Correct: Tracking and documenting incidents demonstrates that the OSC has an operational incident-handling capability and provides objective evidence of detection, response, and lessons learned.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

B (Sources configured/tuned): Helpful for detection, but not sufficient by itself.

C (Law enforcement notified): This may occur in certain cases, but it is not required by CMMC Level 2.

D (Forensics): Deep forensic investigation may be useful, but CMMC requires incident response capability, not mandatory forensic-level activities.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — IR.L2-3.6.1

NIST SP 800-171A — IR.L2-3.6.1 Assessment Objectives (tracking, documenting, handling incidents)

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2 — Incident Reporting

===========

Applicable Requirement (CAP – Scoping and Evidence Validation): When inconsistencies arise about the environment, assessors are required to examine objective artifacts that define boundaries, such as network diagrams and system architecture documentation.

Why A is Correct: Network diagrams objectively show whether systems are hosted on-premises or involve ESPs (cloud, MSSPs, hosting providers). Reviewing them avoids ambiguity from inconsistent verbal descriptions.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

B: Interviewing another OSC representative may add to confusion rather than resolve it.

C: Interconnection agreements confirm ESP relationships but do not resolve whether the OSC has on-prem or hybrid environments.

D: Contacting ESPs directly is not part of the assessment process; OSC must provide evidence.

References (CCA Official Sources):

CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0 — Clarifying System Boundaries

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2 — Evidence Types (network diagrams, architecture documentation)

===========

A one-way hash function is a cryptographic method used to store passwords securely. It is not reversible; hashed values cannot be converted back into the original password.

Extract from SC.L2-3.13.10:

“Store and transmit authentication information in a protected form by using one-way cryptographic transformations (e.g., hashing). One-way transformations cannot be reversed to reveal the original authentication secret.”

Thus, the correct statement is that the transformation makes it impossible to re-convert the hashed password.

Applicable Requirement: AC.L2-3.1.5 — “Employ the principle of least privilege, including for specific security functions and privileged accounts.”

Why A is Correct: Audit logs document when privileged functions (such as account creation, privilege changes, or configuration changes) occur, who performed them, and whether access control restrictions are enforced. Reviewing logs is the only way to confirm the IT manager alone has the capability.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

B (Inventory records): Shows ownership, not privilege changes.

C (Acceptable use): Policy guidance, not enforcement evidence.

D (Remote access): Deals with remote connections, not privilege management.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — AC.L2-3.1.5

NIST SP 800-171A — AC.L2-3.1.5 Assessment Methods

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2

===========

The Examine method is used when the assessor reviews documents, policies, procedures, or system artifacts to validate practices.

Extract:

“Examine: Review, inspect, or analyze assessment objects such as documents, records, and policies to determine compliance with practice requirements.”

Reviewing the incident response plan falls directly under Examine.

The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) requires that results be reported at the OSC level. While findings may be gathered from enclaves or units, the final reporting must be aggregated and scored across the entire OSC assessment boundary.

Extract:

“Final recommended assessment results must be consolidated and reported at the OSC level, regardless of assessment locations or enclaves.”

Thus, the Lead Assessor must ensure aggregation to the OSC level.

IA.L2-3.5.7 requires password complexity rules that include uppercase, lowercase, numeric, and special characters. The given policy addresses three requirements but does not mandate at least one special character.

Extract:

“Enforce password complexity by requiring combinations of upper-case letters, lower-case letters, numbers, and special characters.”

Thus, the missing requirement is the use of a special character.

The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) defines the logical order:

After collecting and examining evidence, the next step is to determine and record initial practice scores (MET, NOT MET, or NA).

Only after practice scoring is completed are findings validated and aggregated into final recommended results.

Extract:

“Following evidence collection and review, assessors determine and record the practice status (MET/NOT MET/NA) before compiling results into final recommendations.”

The CAP defines evidence evaluation requirements. Evidence must not only exist but must also be:

Complete (addresses all assessment objectives for the practice)

Validated (verified by the assessor)

Mapped to the practice requirements (traceable to objectives)

Extract:

“The assessor must confirm that the evidence is complete, validated, and mapped directly to the practice requirements in order to conclude that a practice is MET.”

For hybrid and cloud environments, the Customer Responsibility Matrix is the critical artifact. It identifies which security responsibilities are handled by the CSP and which remain with the OSC, directly impacting scope.

Extract:

“The OSC must provide responsibility matrices or equivalent documentation that clearly delineates which security controls are the responsibility of the provider and which are retained by the OSC.”

This is necessary for the Lead Assessor to define assessment scope boundaries.

Applicable Requirement (CAP – Planning Phase): Both the OSC (Client) and the CCA are responsible for protecting sensitive evidence and CUI during assessment. This includes documenting risks and mitigations for how such information is handled, especially during virtual collection.

Why D is Correct: CAP requires assessors and OSCs to jointly establish processes ensuring safeguarding of CUI evidence. Both parties must record and agree to risks and mitigations as part of the assessment plan.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A & B: Responsibility is shared, not one-sided.

C: Recording by the assessor alone does not fulfill CAP’s joint responsibility requirement.

References (CCA Official Sources):

CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0 — Planning Phase (Handling CUI and Sensitive Evidence)

Code of Professional Conduct — Assessor responsibility for safeguarding CUI

===========

To validate that remote access is routed through managed access control points, the assessor requires technical evidence, not just policy. The network diagram shows the design and routing of remote access through controlled points (e.g., VPN gateways), and VPN logs provide operational evidence that remote sessions are enforced through those points.

Exact Extracts:

AC.L2-3.1.14: “Route remote access through managed access control points.”

Assessment Objective (AC.L2-3.1.14[a]): “Remote access is routed through managed access control points.”

Assessment Method (Examine/Interview/Test): Requires network diagrams and remote access logs as evidence.

CMMC Assessment Guide specifies: “Network diagrams and supporting logs are required to demonstrate implementation of remote access routing.”

Why the other options are not correct:

B (policy/procedures): Policies describe intent, not proof of implementation.

C (SSP/vendor mgmt): SSPs provide system description but not direct evidence of enforcement.

D (cloud logs/hardware inventory): These do not specifically demonstrate remote access routing through managed points.

The OSC (Organization Seeking Certification) is always responsible for meeting CMMC requirements, regardless of what responsibilities are shared or outsourced to an ESP. ESPs can provide inherited practices (e.g., FedRAMP Moderate for cloud CUI), but the OSC remains accountable for compliance under government mandates.

Exact Extracts:

CMMC Assessment Guide: “The OSC is the entity being assessed. While an ESP may provide inherited practices, the OSC retains ultimate responsibility for compliance.”

Scoping Guide: “External Service Providers may meet requirements on behalf of the OSC; however, it is the OSC that is assessed and must demonstrate sufficiency of evidence.”

Why other options are not correct:

A: Incorrect — ESPs that process CUI must meet FedRAMP Moderate equivalency, even if not directly assessed for CMMC.

B: While true, factoring documentation does not override that OSC remains accountable.

C: ESPs are not assessed at the same time as the OSC; only the OSC receives certification.

If an asset processes or generates CUI, it is a CUI Asset by definition, regardless of whether it is also part of a test lab or claimed as a Specialized Asset. Specialized Asset handling applies only when the asset does not process, store, or transmit CUI. Since the workstation outputs CUI, it must be assessed fully against CMMC practices.

Exact extracts:

“CUI Assets are those that process, store, or transmit CUI.”

“Specialized Assets… do not process, store, or transmit CUI.”

“If a Specialized Asset processes CUI, it must be categorized as a CUI Asset and is assessed against all applicable practices.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

B: The issue is not with the SSP practice; it is with misclassification of an asset.

C/D: Risk-based treatment applies only to Specialized Assets without CUI, which is not the case here.

Contractor Risk Managed Assets (CRMA) are required to be identified in the System Security Plan (SSP) because the SSP must describe how each in-scope asset category is managed, including risk-based policies, procedures, and practices. Network diagrams and inventories alone are insufficient without documentation in the SSP.

Exact Extracts:

CMMC Scoping Guide: “Contractor Risk Managed Assets are part of the CMMC Assessment Scope and must be identified in the OSC’s SSP and supporting documentation.”

“The SSP must describe how the contractor manages risk for Contractor Risk Managed Assets.”

“The asset categories (CUI assets, Security Protection Assets, Contractor Risk Managed Assets, Specialized Assets) must be included in the SSP with supporting evidence.”

Why the other options are not correct:

A: Identification/authentication policy does not specifically require mention of CRMAs.

B: Physical protection policies address facility controls, not risk-managed assets.

C: Awareness training covers employees, not technical classification of assets.

D: Correct, because the SSP must explicitly document how CRMAs are managed using risk-based approaches.

The CMMC practice CM.L2-3.4.8 – Application Allow Listing requires that only specifically authorized software is permitted to execute, while all other software is automatically denied.

Extract:

“Application allow listing requires that only approved, explicitly identified applications are authorized to execute on a system. Reliance on users to notify IT after the fact does not meet the requirement.”

Because the OSC’s process depends on users self-reporting rather than enforcing automated allow listing, it is not properly implemented.

To validate least functionality, the assessor must evaluate implementation (via security staff, admins, developers). Interviewing the policy author provides limited value since it does not confirm whether the policy is implemented in practice.

Extract:

“Assessors should confirm least functionality through interviews with individuals responsible for system configuration, security, and implementation. Policy documentation authors alone are not sufficient evidence.”

Thus, interviewing the policy writer is least useful.

According to CMMC Scoping Guidance, assets controlled by a parent organization are out-of-scope when they are physically and logically isolated from the OSC’s environment and do not process, store, or transmit CUI within the OSC’s boundary.

Extract from Scoping Guidance:

“Out-of-Scope assets are those that cannot process, store, or transmit CUI because they are physically or logically separated from CUI assets, or they are inherently unable to do so.”

Since the badge activation machine is completely isolated and managed by the parent organization, and it has no network connectivity to the OSC, it is out-of-scope.

Applicable Requirement: PE.L2-3.10.3 — “Control physical access to organizational systems, equipment, and the respective operating environments.”

Why A is Correct: Security guards are a recognized preventive and detective physical control to limit access to only authorized individuals. Guards can verify credentials, monitor behavior, and provide real-time deterrence.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

B (Cameras): Provide monitoring and evidence, but not direct access control.

C (Firewalls): A network control, not a physical access measure.

D (Partition walls): Barriers may help physically separate areas but do not control who enters.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — PE.L2-3.10.3

NIST SP 800-171A — PE.L2-3.10.3 Assessment Objectives

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2 — Physical Security Controls

===========

Testing may be performed on a mirrored system if the OSC can demonstrate that it is configured identically to the production system. The assessor must confirm equivalency through objective evidence before accepting test results.

Exact Extracts:

NIST SP 800-171A: “Test assessment method involves exercising assessment objects under specified conditions… mirrored or replicated systems may be used if validated as equivalent.”

CMMC Assessment Guide: “If production systems cannot be tested, assessors may accept mirrored systems provided evidence demonstrates that the mirrored environment is representative of the production system.”

Why the other options are not correct:

A/B: Testing must focus on systems and controls, not limited groups or customer matrices.

C: Incorrect — mirrored systems are acceptable if validated as equivalent.

D: Correct, as validation of equivalency is required.

The Physical Protection (PE) practices require both direct assessor observation of security controls and verification of how the OSC manages access to its cages/cabinets.

Extract:

“Assessors should observe and verify the effectiveness of physical access controls and confirm the OSC’s processes for maintaining control over restricted areas and assets.”

Thus, the best option is to physically visit the facility and review OSC’s key access management process.

Applicable Requirement: CAP – Assessment Execution Phase.

Why D is Correct: After scoring and validating preliminary results, the next step is to finalize and record recommended final findings for submission. This closes the assessment process and supports certification decisions.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A: Scope determination occurs in planning, not after validation.

B: Results are delivered after finalization, not immediately after validation.

C: Considering additional evidence occurs during data collection, before validation.

References (CCA Official Sources):

CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0 — Reporting Phase

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2 — Assessment Closure

===========

External connections are defined as connections crossing the OSC’s assessment boundary. Here:

The dedicated VPN from office to cloud = one external connection.

The user-initiated VPNs from remote laptops to cloud = a second external connection.

Extract:

“External connections include all system interfaces that cross the assessment boundary, including VPNs initiated by users or established between sites.”

Thus, there are two external connections.

MA.L2-3.7.1 (Perform Maintenance) requires that maintenance activities and risks associated with outdated or unsupported systems be managed. Unsupported systems create a security risk if not mitigated, particularly when they process CUI.

Extract:

“Maintenance must be performed and documented to ensure continued secure operation. When systems cannot be updated or patched due to technical limitations, the OSC must implement and document risk mitigation strategies.”

Because the OSC has not demonstrated risk management for the outdated OT system, the practice is NOT MET.

Applicable Requirement: AC.L2-3.1.7 — “Prevent non-privileged users from executing privileged functions and capture the execution of such functions in audit logs.”

Correct Interpretation:

A non-privileged (standard) user should be prevented from performing privileged functions (e.g., uninstalling security software).

The attempt must be logged to provide traceability and support accountability.

Why C is Correct: It demonstrates both prevention (software not uninstalled) and auditing (attempt captured in a log), exactly matching the practice.

Why Other Options Are Insufficient:

A: Prevention is shown, but there is no evidence of logging.

B: Function was not prevented, so requirement not met.

D: Logging exists, but privileged action was not prevented.

References (CCA Official Sources):

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 — AC.L2-3.1.7

NIST SP 800-171A — AC.L2-3.1.7 Assessment Objectives

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, AC.L2-3.1.7

===========