Understanding SI.L2-3.14.6: Monitor Communications for Attacks

The practiceSI.L2-3.14.6fromNIST SP 800-171(aligned with CMMC Level 2) requires an organization tomonitor organizational communications for indicators of attack. This typically includes:

✅Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS)andIntrusion Prevention Systems (IPS)

✅Log analysis and network monitoring

✅Incident response planningfor detected threats

As part of aCMMC Level 2 assessment, theCertified CMMC Assessor (CCA)must ensure that theOSC (Organization Seeking Certification)hasproperly implemented and documenteditsmonitoring capabilities.

Why "Review an artifact to check key references for the configuration of the IDS or IPS" is Correct?

TheCCA must collect sufficient objective evidenceto determine compliance.

Reviewing anartifact(such as system configurations, IDS/IPS logs, or security policies)helps validatethat intrusion detection is properly implemented.

Configuration settings providedirect evidenceof whethermonitoring for attacksis effectively applied.

Breakdown of Answer Choices

Option

Description

Correct?

A. Conduct a penetration test

❌Incorrect–Penetration testing isnot requiredfor CMMC Level 2 assessments and falls outside an assessor's responsibilities.

B. Interview the intrusion detection system's supplier.

❌Incorrect–Thesupplier does not determine compliance; the assessor needs evidence from theOSC’s implementation.

C. Upload known malicious code and observe the system response.

❌Incorrect–This would beinvasive testing, which isnot part of a CMMC assessment.

D. Review an artifact to check key references for the configuration of the IDS or IPS practice for additional guidance on intrusion detection and prevention systems.

✅Correct – Reviewing system artifacts provides direct evidence of compliance with SI.L2-3.14.6.

Official References from CMMC 2.0 and NIST SP 800-171 Documentation

NIST SP 800-171 SI.L2-3.14.6– Requires monitoring communications for attack indicators.

CMMC Assessment Process Guide (CAP)– Describesartifact reviewas an essential assessment method.

Final Verification and Conclusion

The correct answer isD. Review an artifact to check key references for the configuration of the IDS or IPS practice for additional guidance on intrusion detection and prevention systems.

This aligns withCMMC 2.0 Level 2 assessment requirementsandSI.L2-3.14.6 compliance verification.

CMMC 2.0 Level 2 is directly aligned withNIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171, "Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations."Organizations seeking certification (OSC) at Level 2 must demonstrate compliance with the 110 security requirements specified inNIST SP 800-171, as mandated byDFARS 252.204-7012.

Why NIST SP 800-171 is Essential for Level 2 Scoping:

Defines the Security Requirements for Protecting CUI:

NIST SP 800-171 outlines 110 security controls that contractors must implement to protectControlled Unclassified Information (CUI)in nonfederal systems.

These controls are categorized under14 families, including access control, incident response, and risk management.

Establishes the Baseline for CMMC Level 2 Compliance:

CMMC 2.0 Level 2 assessments areentirely based on NIST SP 800-171requirements.

Every practice assessed in a Level 2 certification maps directly to a requirement fromNIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2.

Provides Guidance for Implementation & Assessment:

TheNIST SP 800-171A "Assessment Guide"provides detailed assessment objectives that guide OSCs in preparing for CMMC evaluations.

It helps define the scope of an assessment by clarifying how each control should be implemented and verified.

Referenced in CMMC and DFARS Regulations:

DFARS 252.204-7012requires contractors to implementNIST SP 800-171security requirements.

TheCMMC 2.0 Level 2modeldirectly incorporates all 110 requirementsfromNIST SP 800-171, ensuring consistency with DoD cybersecurity expectations.

Explanation of Incorrect Answers:

A. NIST SP 800-53 ("Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations")

This documentapplies to federal systems, not nonfederal entities handling CUI.

While it is the foundation for other security standards, it isnot the basis of CMMC Level 2assessments.

B. NIST SP 800-88 ("Guidelines for Media Sanitization")

This documentfocuses on secure data destructionand media sanitization techniques.

While data disposal is important, this standarddoes not define security controls for protecting CUI.

D. NIST SP 800-172 ("Enhanced Security Requirements for Protecting CUI")

This documentbuilds on NIST SP 800-171and applies to systems needingadvanced cybersecurity protections(e.g., targeting Advanced Persistent Threats).

It isnot required for standard CMMC Level 2 assessments, which only mandateNIST SP 800-171 compliance.

Key References for CMMC Level 2 Scoping:

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2(NIST Official Site)

NIST SP 800-171A (Assessment Guide)(NIST Official Site)

CMMC 2.0 Level 2 Scoping Guide(Cyber AB)

Conclusion:

SinceCMMC 2.0 Level 2 assessments are based entirely on NIST SP 800-171, this document is the most relevant resource for scoping Level 2 assessments. Therefore, the correct answer is:

✅C. NIST SP 800-171

The Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Program, established by Executive Order 13556, standardizes the handling and marking of unclassified information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls across federal agencies and their contractors. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) serves as the Executive Agent responsible for implementing the CUI Program.

In the context of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0, particularly at Level 2, organizations are required to protect CUI by adhering to the security requirements outlined in NIST Special Publication 800-171. This includes proper marking of CUI to ensure that all personnel recognize and handle such information appropriately.

The NARA CUI Introduction to Marking provides comprehensive guidance on the correct procedures for marking documents and communications containing CUI. This resource is essential for training purposes, as it offers detailed instructions and examples to help personnel understand and implement proper CUI markings. By referring the sales team to the NARA CUI Introduction to Marking, the director of sales ensures that the team receives authoritative and standardized training on how to appropriately mark emails and other documents containing CUI, thereby maintaining compliance with federal regulations and CMMC requirements.

The best match is Penetration test team because penetration testing is an authorized, structured security evaluation intended to find vulnerabilities in systems or networks and produce results that enable remediation/mitigation .

Authoritatively, NIST SP 800-115 (Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment) is a primary federal reference for technical security testing. It describes the purpose of technical testing as helping organizations plan and conduct tests , analyze findings , and develop mitigation strategies —which aligns directly with “vulnerability evaluations” and “providing mitigation techniques.” The DoD also points its Components to NIST SP 800-115 as guidance for penetration testing activities.

By contrast, a Red Team is typically framed as an “ethical adversary” that emulates attackers to test detection/response and overall readiness; it is often broader, scenario-driven, and focused on demonstrating what a capable adversary can accomplish rather than performing a scoped vulnerability evaluation with remediation-oriented outputs. A Blue Team is primarily defensive operations (monitoring, detection, response), not the group defined by conducting vulnerability evaluations for customers. “ White hat hackers ” is a general label for ethical hackers, but it is less specific than the established service construct of a penetration test team .

Because the question emphasizes operational network vulnerability evaluations plus mitigation techniques , the most precise and standard term is D: Penetration test team , supported by NIST’s testing-and-mitigation framing.

Understanding Scoping in CMMC 2.0

TheCMMC 2.0 framework applies to nonfederal systemsthat process, store, or transmitCUI.

Scoping determineswhich system components must comply with CMMC practices.

If a systemprocesses, stores, or transmits CUI, orprovides security for those systems, itmust be included in the assessment scope.

Why the Correct Answer is "D. Nonfederal systems that process, store, or transmit CUI, or that provide protection for the system components"?

CMMC Applies to Contractors, Not Federal Systems

CMMC isdesigned for Department of Defense (DoD) contractors, notfederal systems.

Federal systems arealready governed by NIST SP 800-53and other regulations.

Scope Includes Systems That Process CUI AND Those That Protect Them

Systemsprocessing, storing, or transmitting CUIare in scope.

Systems thatprovide protection for CUI systems(e.g., firewalls, monitoring tools, security appliances) arealso in scope.

Why Not the Other Options?

A. Federal systems that process, store, or transmit CUI.→Incorrect

CMMCdoes not apply to federal systems.

B. Nonfederal systems that process, store, or transmit CUI.→Partially correct but incomplete

Itexcludes security systemsthat protect CUI assets, whichare also in scope.

C. Federal systems that process, store, or transmit CUI, or that provide protection for the system components.→Incorrect

CMMConly applies to nonfederal systems.

Relevant CMMC 2.0 References:

CMMC Scoping Guide (Nov 2021)– Confirms that CMMCapplies to nonfederal systemsprocessingCUI.

NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2– Specifies security requirements fornonfederal systemshandling CUI.

DFARS 252.204-7012– Requires DoD contractors to implementNIST SP 800-171onnonfederal systemshandling CUI.

Final Justification:

SinceCMMC applies to nonfederal systems that process CUI or protect those systems, the correct answer isD. Nonfederal systems that process, store, or transmit CUI, or that provide protection for the system components.

Understanding the Final Review Process in a CMMC Assessment

During aCMMC Level 2 Assessment, theAssessment Teamand theOrganization Seeking Certification (OSC)holddaily checkpoint meetingsto discuss progress, review evidence, and ensure transparency.

At theend of the assessment, afinal review meetingis conducted, during which theLead Assessor presents the results. Therecorded Daily Checkpoint logserves as theofficial document summarizing:

Theattendee list

Time, date, and locationof the final review

Final MET or NOT MET ratingsfor all practices

Discussion points, resulting actions, and due datesfor both the OSC and Assessment Team

Why "D. Final and recorded Daily Checkpoint log" is Correct?

TheCMMC Assessment Process (CAP) Guidespecifies that all assessment findings and discussions must bedocumented throughout the assessment in daily checkpoint logs.

TheFinal and Recorded Daily Checkpoint Logincludes all necessary details, such as attendee lists, discussion topics, and action items.

This document isused to ensure all discussed topics and agreed-upon actions are properly tracked and recordedbefore submission.

Why Other Answers Are Incorrect?

A. Final log report (Incorrect)

There isno specific "Final Log Report"required in CMMC assessments.

B. Final CMMC report (Incorrect)

TheFinal CMMC Reportdocuments the overall assessment results butdoes not serve as the official meeting logfor the final review discussion.

C. Final and recorded OSC CMMC report (Incorrect)

This documentdoes not include detailed discussion points from the daily checkpoint meetings.

Conclusion

The correct answer isD. Final and recorded Daily Checkpoint log, as this is the official document that captures thefinal meeting details, discussions, and action items.

In CMMC v2.0, Level 1 is explicitly the level that “focuses on the protection of FCI ” and is composed of the basic safeguarding requirements aligned to FAR 52.204-21 . This directly establishes Level 1 as meeting the standard for protecting FCI.

However, the question asks which levels meet the standard of protecting FCI—not which level is primarily intended for FCI. The official CMMC Model Overview (Version 2.0) states that the CMMC levels and associated sets of practices are cumulative , meaning that to achieve a higher level, an organization must also demonstrate achievement of the preceding lower levels. Because Level 2 and Level 3 certifications require meeting lower-level requirements as part of achieving the higher certification, an organization certified at Level 2 or Level 3 necessarily satisfies the Level 1 requirements that protect FCI.

In addition, the later Model Overview v2.13 reiterates the structure of the model: Level 1 requirements correspond to FAR 52.204-21 safeguards (FCI), while Level 2 and Level 3 focus on CUI protection at increasing rigor. Taken together, the official documents support that Levels 1, 2, and 3 all meet the standard for protecting FCI, with Level 1 being the foundational baseline and Levels 2/3 building on it.

===========

According to the CMMC Assessment Process (CAP), specifically during the Phase 3: Conduct Assessment (Evidence Collection and Verification), the Assessment Team must evaluate all collected artifacts, interview notes, and test results against two primary dimensions: Adequacy and Sufficiency.

Adequacy (The "Right" Evidence): This criterion focuses on the quality, relevance, and validity of the evidence. It addresses whether the evidence actually maps to the specific CMMC practice being assessed and whether it is authoritative (e.g., signed, current, and from a trusted source). If an assessor asks, "Is this therightpiece of information to prove this practice is met?" they are testing for Adequacy.

Sufficiency (The "Enough" Evidence): This criterion focuses on the quantity and scope of the evidence. It addresses whether the Assessment Team has collected enough data points (across the required number of assets and using the required methods of Examine, Interview, and Test) to reach a confident conclusion. If an assessor asks, "Do I haveenoughexamples of this practice in action across the entire enclave?" they are testing for Sufficiency.

Why other options are incorrect:

B and D (Objectivity/Subjectivity): While assessors must remain objective, these are not the formal "criteria" used to categorize the evidence collection quality within the CAP framework.

C (Sufficiency): As noted above, Sufficiency is about theamountof evidence, not whether it is thecorrect type(the "right" evidence).

Reference Documents:

CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0: Section 3.4, "Collect and Verify Evidence," which explicitly defines the requirement for evidence to be both adequate and sufficient.

CMMC Level 2 Assessment Guide: Guidance on the application of the Examine, Interview, and Test (E-I-T) methods to ensure evidence quality.

NIST SP 800-171A: The foundation for CMMC assessment procedures, which emphasizes the need for relevant (adequate) evidence to support findings.

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.

===========

CMMC Level 1 practices correspond directly to the basic safeguarding requirements for Federal Contract Information (FCI), which are codified in FAR clause 48 CFR 52.204-21. These 15 requirements form the foundation for Level 1 compliance.

Supporting Extracts from Official Content:

48 CFR 52.204-21: “Contractors shall apply the following 15 basic safeguarding requirements to protect Federal Contract Information (FCI).”

CMMC Model v2.0 Overview: “Level 1 corresponds to the 15 basic safeguarding requirements in FAR 52.204-21.”

Why Option C is Correct:

FAR 52.204-21 is the source for Level 1 practices.

NIST SP 800-171 applies to CUI and Level 2, not Level 1.

NIST SP 800-171b is the precursor to NIST SP 800-172 (used for Level 3).

DFARS 252.204-7012 covers CUI safeguarding and incident reporting, not Level 1 FCI requirements.

References (Official CMMC v2.0 Content):

FAR 48 CFR 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems.

CMMC Model v2.0, Level 1 Overview.