CMMC-CCA Dumps with Practice Exam Questions Answers

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.

For AC.L2-3.1.7 (Restrict Use of Privileged Accounts), it is not enough to rely on interviews or documented procedures. The assessor must also Examine technical evidence to ensure that privileged accounts exist as described and are properly controlled. Reviewing system architecture, account listings, and role assignments validates that privileged access aligns with policy and that inappropriate assignments do not exist.

Exact extracts:

“Assessment Objectives … Determine if: privileged accounts are identified; privileged functions are restricted to privileged accounts; and use of privileged accounts is monitored.”

“Assessment Methods – Examine: account management policy; system architecture documentation; system security plan; privileged account listings.”

“Assessment Methods – Test: attempt to use non-privileged accounts to execute privileged functions.”

Expanded explanation:

Assessors typically proceed in layers:

Interview: Confirm staff knowledge of policy and practice.

Examine: Verify account structures in system architecture or AD group membership lists. This ensures the number and type of privileged accounts match staff descriptions.

Test (if required): Confirm that non-privileged users cannot perform privileged actions.

Why other options are incorrect:

B: Testing non-privileged accounts is useful but is not the next immediate validation step after confirming policy/procedures. Examination comes first.

C: This phrasing implies giving privileged roles to non-privileged functions, which would itself be a finding.

D: Testing with privileged users verifies activity monitoring, but not whether privileged accounts are properly scoped.

Malicious code protection is typically implemented and managed by system or network administrators, who configure, deploy, and monitor anti-malware solutions. Interviews with these administrators provide direct evidence of control implementation.

Exact Extracts:

SI.L2-3.14.2: “Provide protection from malicious code at appropriate locations within organizational information systems.”

CMMC Assessment Guide: “Interviews should be conducted with administrators responsible for deployment and monitoring of malicious code protection.”

NIST SP 800-171A (SI.L2-3.14.2): “Interview system or network administrators to determine how malicious code protection is implemented.”

Why other options are not correct:

A (developers): Developers do not typically manage system-wide malicious code protections.

C (audit personnel): They review logs, not deploy/manage protections.

D (security advisory staff): They track alerts but don’t operate malicious code defenses.

The CMMC Assessment Process emphasizes the importance of confidentiality and non-attribution in interviews to ensure OSC personnel provide candid, accurate information. Interviewees may give shallow or evasive answers if they fear attribution. Assuring confidentiality and non-attribution improves the quality and reliability of responses.

Exact extracts:

“The assessment team must ensure confidentiality and non-attribution during interviews.”

“Responses should be validated against evidence, but the quality of input depends on establishing a safe environment for candor.”

“Non-attribution is critical to elicit detailed and honest responses.”

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: Training matrices identify who is trained, not who should be interviewed.

C: NDAs are not a CCA responsibility — they are contractual, not assessment requirements.

D: Mapping to artifacts is part of correlation after interviews, but does not solve the problem of poor interview responses.

Applicable Requirement (CMMC Assessment Process): The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) requires assessors to collect, analyze, and reconcile evidence using triangulation (examine, interview, test) to confirm whether requirements are MET or NOT MET. When inconsistencies arise, the assessor must go back to objective evidence such as diagrams, contracts, and notes.

Why Reviewing Network Diagrams Helps (supports A): Network diagrams provide authoritative evidence of scope, data flows, and system boundaries, which helps clarify whether the MSSP’s services were accurately described.

Why Reviewing MSSP Agreements Helps (supports B): Agreements (such as interconnection security agreements or service-level agreements) define shared responsibilities and confirm how the MSSP supports security controls. This evidence is critical to resolving inconsistent testimony.

Why Reviewing Notes Helps (supports C): Notes from previous interviews allow the team to pinpoint where answers diverged. This is a valid method of evidence review and aligns with CAP guidance on documenting interviews.

Why Interview Questionnaire Consistency is NOT the Correct Step (refutes D): The CAP emphasizes resolving inconsistencies through additional evidence, not by adjusting or re-checking the questionnaire itself. The consistency of the questionnaire is irrelevant — what matters is reconciling the evidence provided by both the OSC and MSSP. Thus, this is the action the Lead Assessor would NOT take.

Assessment Guidance Extract (CAP):

“When conflicting evidence is observed, the assessment team must review technical documentation, agreements, and notes to identify the root cause and determine whether additional clarification is required.”

“The interview instrument itself is not a tool for reconciling inconsistencies; rather, objective evidence must be used.”

References (CCA Official Sources):

CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0 — Section 3: Conducting the Assessment (Interview, Evidence, Triangulation, and Conflict Resolution)

CMMC Assessment Guide – Level 2, Version 2.13 — Guidance on the role of External Service Providers (MSSPs) and use of documented agreements as evidence

NIST SP 800-171A — General assessment methodology: reconcile evidence using examine, interview, and test methods