Breaking Down CMMC ESPs and Inherited Controls: What DOD Contractors Need to Know

🚀 New Episode Alert: Navigating CMMC Compliance with ESPs and Inherited Controls 🚀

In our latest episode of CMMC News, we dive deep into the complexities of CMMC compliance and how to effectively manage the relationship with your External Service Providers (ESPs). This episode is packed with insights that are crucial for any DOD contractor aiming to unravel the intricacies of inheriting security controls while maintaining full compliance responsibility. Here's a sneak peek at three key takeaways:

🔹 Own Your Responsibility: Just because your ESP is CMMC certified doesn’t mean you’re off the hook. You're accountable for validating, documenting, and proving those inherited controls work in your environment.

🔹 Clear Role Divisions: Understand the spectrum of responsibilities—fully inherited, partially inherited, and those non-delegable controls that are 100% on you, like user authorization and data classification.

🔹 Audit Readiness is Key: Meticulous documentation is your best friend. Make sure your controls are thoroughly documented in your SSP, supported by concrete evidence to ace that CMMC assessment.

For the official CMMC documentation, click this link: https://dodcio.defense.gov/cmmc/Resources-Documentation/

#CMMC #Cybersecurity #DODCompliance #ESPs #SecurityControls #AuditReady

Transcript

0:13

Welcome back everyone to the deep dive. You know, if you're a DOD contractor, cybersecurity compliance can sometimes feel like, I don't know, trying to herd cats. And when you throw CMMC into the mix, it can get, well, even more interesting to say the least. Oh, yeah. CMMC, the cybersecurity maturity model certification, definitely adds another layer of complexity. And you know what? One area that we see folks struggling with time and time again is trying to wrap their heads around external service providers or ESPs for short and this whole concept of inheriting security controls. It can be a real head scratcher, but luckily, we've been digging into some really helpful resources that shed light on all of this. Absolutely. So what we're aiming to do today is really break it down for you. What exactly are these ESPs? How does this whole thing with inheriting controls actually work in the real world? And most importantly, what are your responsibilities under the CMMC final rule? We want you to be able to make informed decisions, avoid those pitfalls, and maybe even spot some, shall we say, creative marketing claims out there. Yeah. Definitely. We want to equip you with the knowledge to see through the hype. And one crucial point to remember right off the bat is that even if your ESP has that CMMC level two certification, it doesn't magically make you, the organization seeking certification compliant. You're still ultimately responsible. That's a big one. Right? It's so easy to think, oh, they're certified, so we're good. But it's just not that simple. Not at all. And that's where a lot of the confusion starts. So let's dive right in. What does the CMMC final rule actually say about ESPs and inheriting controls? Right. Let's get into the nitty gritty. And, you know, when we look at 32 CFR part one seventy, which is the CMMC final rule, it does say that OSCs can inherit security controls from their ESPs. But and I think this is important. There are some major caveats there. Oh, for sure. While you can inherit those controls, it's not a free pass. You, as the OSCA, are absolutely responsible for validating, documenting, and proving that those inherited controls are actually implemented and working correctly in your environment. You have to be actively involved. So it's not a set it and forget it kind of thing, Just because the ESP says, don't worry, we've got you covered, doesn't mean you can just check that box and move on. Exactly. And this is a point worth repeating. When a CMMC assessor comes knocking, they're going to be evaluating those inherited controls as they apply to the OSC's specific scope. They're not just gonna say, oh, the ESP handles that, so we don't need to look at it. Yeah. It's all part of your assessment. It makes sense. I mean, at the end of the day, the assessment is about your security posture, right, Not just about what your ESP is doing over there in their little corner of the world. Exactly. It's about how everything works together within your organization. And the source material really drives this point home. That CMMC certification that your ESP might have, it doesn't automatically transfer over to you. You need your own assessment. Right. And then there's the ongoing aspect of this. It's not just a one time check. You, the OSC, you've got to keep an eye on things, maintain that oversight and accountability for any controls that you're relying on your ESP to handle. It's a continuous process. Absolutely. You can't just outsource the responsibility and forget about it. You're still in the driver's seat. Okay. So we've established that you can inherit controls, but you've gotta own that process. Now, let's talk about the specifics. How does an OSC actually figure out their responsibility for these inherited controls? Our source material mentions these terms. Fully inherited, partially inherited, and not inherited controls. And I'll be honest, the line between fully and partially inherited has always been a little bit fuzzy for me. Can you help clear that up a bit? Absolutely. Think of it like a spectrum of responsibility. So a fully inherited to control might be something like, let's say, a super robust firewall that's managed entirely by your ESP. It's centrally managed, top of the line, and you don't have to do much hands on configuration or management. But even then, you still need to be sure that it's configured to meet your specific requirements and that it's actually doing its job within your network. You're not completely off the hook even when it's fully inherited. Okay. I'm starting to see the nuances there. So what would a partially inherited control look like then? That's when the responsibility is split. The ESP handles some aspects, and you, the OSC, handle others. For example, think about physical security for a data center where your CUI is stored. The ESP might be responsible for the physical building, like controlling who walks in the door. But you, the OSC, are are still responsible for controlling who has access to that CUI electronically once it's inside that secure facility. So they handle the physical locks, and you handle the digital ones, so to speak. Got it. Shared responsibility. And I'm guessing there are also some controls that you just can't hand off to an ESP at all. Right? Some things that are % on you. Precisely. There are certain responsibilities that are nonnegotiable, and the source material is very clear about this. While ESPs can be incredibly helpful with those technical implementations and even some oversight, the ultimate responsibility for compliance, for making those key decisions and for the overall governance, that all stays with you, the OSC. You can't delegate those core responsibilities away. So when that CMMC assessor shows up, you better be ready to show them what you've got even for the things that your ESP is helping you with. You bet. They're going to wanna see all your documentation, those contracts and agreements you have with your ESP clearly outlining who's responsible for what. And even more importantly, they're gonna wanna see how you're validating that those inherited controls are actually effective in your environment. You can't just point to your ESP certification, call it a day. You've gotta show them the receipts. Now there's an interesting analogy in the source material that I wanted to bring up. It talks about the risk management framework or RMF and the concept of common controls. Can you explain how that connects to what we're talking about here with CMMC? It's a great comparison, actually. In the RMF world, a system can inherit common security controls from, let's say, a shared infrastructure or a common service. For example, if you're sharing a network, you might have some common authentication and authorization controls that everyone on that network inherits. But here's the catch. Even though you're inheriting those controls, you still have to validate that they're implemented correctly. You have to provide ongoing oversight, and you have to make sure that those common controls are actually meeting your specific security needs. And all of this is part of getting your ATO, your approval to operate. It's not just a freebie. And that core principle is very similar to what we see in CMMC. Inheriting a control doesn't mean you can just wash your hands of it. You're still responsible for managing it and making sure it's working within your unique environment. That analogy really helps to crystallize the concept. So let's bring this home with some concrete examples. The background paper that we've been referencing provides some really helpful examples of specific CMMC level two controls and how the shared responsibility plays out in practice. So let's walk through a few of those to illustrate these points. First up, let's look at a c dot l two three point one point one point one, which deals with access authorization. Right. Access authorization. So in this case, your ESP might be the one who sets up the technical controls for access. Think multifactor authentication, managing user accounts, things like that. They're handling the nuts and bolts of the system. But, and this is a big but, the source material emphasizes that only the OSC is responsible for the actual authorization of users. That means deciding who gets access to what, setting those policies, and approving access requests. It's like this. The ESP might build the house and install the locks, but you get to decide who gets a key and which rooms they can enter. Perfect analogy. It's about the who and the why of access, not just the how. So how about c m dot l two three point four point three, which covers configuration management? How does that responsibility break down? So with configuration management, the ESP can definitely be a helpful partner. They can assist with the technical side of things, like applying those software patches, maintaining those baseline configurations, and keeping an eye out for any deviations from those configurations. But the bottom line is that you, the OSC, are ultimately responsible for approving and documenting any changes to those configurations. You have to ensure that those changes align with your overall security policies and that they make sense for your organization. You're the one setting the direction and making the final call. Makes sense. You're in control of the big picture even when you're relying on the ESP for some of the technical details. Now let's talk about incident reporting, I r dot l two dash three point six point two. This seems like another area where responsibility could get murky. It absolutely can, and it's so important to understand where the lines are drawn. Your ESP might have some fantastic systems in place to detect potential cybersecurity incidents. They might even be able to help you with those initial response steps, but listen closely. The source material is very clear that the OSC is the one responsible for reporting those cybersecurity incidents to the DOD as required by DVARS two five two point two zero four dash seven zero. You're the one who has to pick up the phone and make that call. It's your name on the line. That's a critical distinction. You can't assume that your ESP will handle that for you. Yeah. What about media protection, specifically m p dot l two three point eight point one, which deals with the life cycle of physical CUI, and MPDAL two three point eight point four, which covers media marking. Those are great examples of areas where in most cases, ESPs have very limited or even zeal responsibility. The source material makes it crystal clear. ESPs don't manage the life cycle of that physical CUI. It's your job as the OSC to ensure that any physical media containing CUI is stored securely, controlled properly, and disposed of correctly, all in accordance with your contract requirements. And similarly, ESPs aren't responsible for labeling CUI. That falls squarely on your shoulders to make sure everything is marked correctly and distributed according to those contract requirements. Why? These are fundamental organizational responsibilities that are tied to the data itself. You can't really outsource the physical handling and labeling of your sensitive information. It's your data, your responsibility. You can't expect a third party to take on that burden for you. What about personnel security, specifically PSL two three point nine point one, and physical security, p e dot l two three point zero point three? Where do those responsibilities lie? Those are squarely within your domain as the OSC. ESPs aren't gonna conduct those personnel screenings or background checks on your employees. You have to do that due diligence yourself following your contract requirements and security policies. And likewise, ESPs don't manage access to your physical facilities, things like visitor escorts, enforcing your physical security policies, making sure CUI is protected within your own premises, that's all on you. You're the guardian of your own castle. Makes sense. And finally, let's touch on CA dot l two three point one two point four, the system security plan or SSP. It feels like the SSP is kind of the linchpin that holds everything together. You got it. It's the central document that lays out your whole security game plan. Plan. And while an ESP can provide you with information about their services and how those services might help you meet certain controls, they can give you pieces of the puzzle, but the source material is very clear. You, the OSC, have to develop, maintain, and approve your own SSP. That SSP needs to document exactly how every single security control, whether it's implemented internally or inherited from your ESP, is implemented within your specific environment. You can't just copy and paste your ESP's SSP and call it a day. Our source material even points to NIST SP eight hundred one seven one r two requirement three point one two point four, which really underscores this point. You own your SSP. So no matter how many controls an OSC might be inheriting from their ESP, there are just some core responsibilities that they can never delegate. Could you recap some of those nontransferable responsibilities for us? Absolutely. As we've been discussing, the OSC always maintains governance and accountability over user actions and their organizational security policies. It all starts with user behavior and access management. While an ESP might provide the technical tools for authentication, you, the OSC, are responsible for provisioning those user accounts, granting appropriate access based on that principle of least privilege, and ultimately approving who gets access to what. It's not just about the mechanics of access control. It's about the decision making behind it. It's about the why, not just the how. What else is firmly in the OSC's court? Security governance and policy enforcement are completely nonnegotiable. It's up to you to establish those organizational security policies, develop your procedures, and create training programs to make sure that your employees understand and follow those policies. You can't just say, oh, our ESP handles security and expect that to be enough. You have to cultivate a security aware culture within your own organization. You're the architect of your security culture. And what about the data itself, the CUI? Who's ultimately responsible for that? Even if you're working with an ESP that's providing those secure storage environments, you're still the one in charge of data protection and classification. You're the one who has to classify that information, apply the correct labels, and control who has access to that CUI. Think of it this way. The ESP might provide the safe, but you decide what goes inside it and who gets the combination. You're the ultimate custodian of your sensitive information. We already discussed incident response reporting, but what about that broader responsibility for coordinating the incident response effort? While an ESP might bring some valuable capabilities to the table when it comes to detecting and responding to incidents, you can't hand off that responsibility completely. You, the OSC, are the one who's responsible for coordinating those incident response efforts, communicating with the DOD, and making sure that you're complying with DFARS two five two point two zero four seven zero one. The ESP can be a key player on your incident response team, but you're the team captain. You're the one calling the plays. And finally, when you're relying on an ESP for some of your controls, how do you, as the OSC, ensure that you're truly audit ready? That's where meticulous documentation comes in. You have to make absolutely sure that every single inherited control is documented thoroughly and accurately in your SSP and that you have the evidence to back it up. When that CMMC assessor comes in, you need to be able to show them that those controls are actually working within your environment. Our source material even recommends checking out the CMMC level two assessment guide, which can give you a really good insight into what those assessors are going to be looking for. It's like studying for the big exam. Right? You gotta know what's gonna be on the test. So to sum it all up for you, the big takeaway from this Deepa Dive is that while external service providers can be incredibly valuable partners for DOD contractors, especially when it comes to implementing those specific security controls, the ultimate responsibility for achieving and maintaining CMMC compliance rests with you, the organization seeking certification. It's your ship. You can inherit controls from an ESP, but it requires careful documentation, ongoing validation, and a clear understanding that the CMMC assessor is going to be evaluating those controls within the context of your environment. And those fundamental areas like governance, setting those policies and enforcing them, managing user behavior, protecting your data, those are areas where you simply can't pass the buck. You said it. And I can't stress this enough. You, the OSC decision maker, you've gotta carefully evaluate those marketing claims that you see out there. Make sure that your compliance strategy is based on those rock solid regulatory requirements, not just on slick sales pitches. Yeah. A CMMC level two certification for an ESP, it can be a good indicator of their security practices, but it's absolutely not a substitute for your own certification. You gotta do your due diligence. So here's a final thought to leave you with. Knowing that the ultimate responsibility for CMMC compliance lies with the OSC, no matter how many ESPs you're working with, what steps can you take today to really understand and manage both your internal and external security controls? How can you go beyond just checking the certification box and truly ensure that your organization is secure from top to bottom? That's something to really think about. Thanks for joining us for another deep dive.