Starting the journey toward compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012, NIST SP 800-171, or CMMC standards can be challenging, especially when it comes to identifying and securing Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). For defense contractors, CUI handling isn’t just an internal responsibility; it’s a critical element for contract eligibility. Missteps can expose your organization to regulatory risk and jeopardize future Department of Defense (DOD) contracts. To avoid these pitfalls, establishing a clear understanding of CUI requirements and creating robust boundaries around it is essential.
Formalizing CUI Clarification Practices
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) CUI Registry is a government resource that lists categories and definitions of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), primarily intended to guide federal agencies in classifying sensitive information. While this registry is informative, it’s not a tool that defense contractors can use independently to determine if their data qualifies as CUI.
Defense contractors are not the classifiers or owners of CUI—they cannot simply refer to the NARA CUI Registry to self-identify data as CUI. Instead, contractors must rely on specific guidance within the contract or consult with contracting officers to clarify whether CUI is present.
When DFARS 252.204-7012 appears without specific CUI details, contractors should adopt a formal practice—complete with defined processes and documentation—of reaching out to contracting officers or designated DOD representatives to clarify the CUI scope. This proactive approach ensures that no critical information is missed and establishes a foundation for setting appropriate boundaries and controls around CUI. By documenting each inquiry and response, contractors create an accountable process that protects them in the event of an audit and demonstrates a commitment to regulatory alignment.
The Importance of Accurate CUI Scoping
Protecting CUI effectively requires accurately defining and scoping its presence within an organization’s environment. This process involves understanding where CUI resides, who has access to it, and how it flows within and outside the organization. Without a strong understanding of CUI flow and clearly defined boundaries for its control, scope creep can occur, leading to potential issues that an auditor will likely identify during assessments.
Scoping Guidelines and Asset Categories
To avoid missteps, it’s crucial to understand which assets interact with CUI and set boundaries accordingly:
- CUI Assets: Systems that directly handle CUI, such as endpoints or file shares, require the strictest controls.
- Security Protection Assets (SPA): Assets like firewalls or intrusion detection systems, which secure CUI-handling systems, also fall within the boundary.
- Contractor Risk Managed Assets (CRMA): Assets that can, but are not intended to, process, store, or transmit CUI because of security policy, procedures, and practices in place. These systems may require additional review and protective controls.
- Specialized Assets: Unique systems, such as IoT devices or operational technology, that may or may not process CUI.
- Out-of-Scope Assets: Systems that do not and should not interact with CUI can remain outside of strict CUI-related controls but must be securely isolated.
By clarifying CUI requirements with a formalized process, contractors ensure that every relevant system is identified, secured, and documented as part of a structured compliance framework. This approach not only helps avoid costly missteps but also positions the organization as a responsible and diligent DoD contractor, committed to protecting sensitive information from the outset.
Case Study: The Hidden Gap
Consider a recent assessment where an organization confidently showcased their Windows environment. The systems had centralized authentication, security monitoring, and regular patching—everything appeared compliant. However, Linux systems within the engineering department, assumed out of scope, were overlooked. These Linux systems not only handled CUI but were managed entirely by engineering staff, without centralized authentication, security tools, or regular patching.
When auditors uncovered this environment, what started as a clean assessment quickly unraveled. The Linux systems became a glaring gap, with security vulnerabilities and inconsistent management practices that didn’t meet compliance standards. This oversight jeopardized the organization’s eligibility for future contracts and led to an urgent, costly scramble to secure the Linux systems. The lesson? Incomplete scoping can turn a solid assessment into a potential compliance failure, underscoring the importance of including all CUI-handling environments in your assessment.
Effective Strategies for Out-of-Scope Assets
A comprehensive CUI strategy includes securing out-of-scope assets to ensure they remain isolated from CUI. Key practices include:
- Isolation: Use physical or logical separation to prevent accidental CUI exposure.
- Access Control: Enforce role-based restrictions and require additional authentication for out-of-scope systems.
- Monitoring: Regularly scan for data leaks or unauthorized access to ensure that out-of-scope assets remain outside the CUI boundary.
Protecting and Documenting Your CUI Assets
Defense contractors must build defensible, mature documentation and operational processes to maintain compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012. Auditors expect more than verbal assurances; they need clear records of procedures, controls, and actions taken to protect CUI. CyberSheath provides support through continuous monitoring, regular assessments, and structured security planning to ensure CUI is safeguarded effectively.
Moreover, DFARS 252.204-7012 requires that any cloud platforms introduced into your environment that store, process, or transmit CUI must be hosted in a FedRAMP Moderate-authorized cloud environment or one verifiably equivalent, as outlined in the FedRAMP Moderate equivalency memo released by the DOD. This level of diligence is necessary to protect CUI, meet contractual obligations, prepare for Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity Assessment Center (DIBCAC) audits, and ultimately become CMMC-ready.