Cybersecurity Maturity Model Matures: DoD Adds New Requirements to Draft Cybersecurity Certification
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.10.19
The Defense Department has released Revision 0.4 of its Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) that, starting next year, independent auditors are to use to certify contractor compliance with DoD cybersecurity requirements. Revision 0.4 more than doubles the number of cybersecurity controls across the CMMC’s five maturity “Levels.” But the DoD emphasizes that it will further down-select these controls and that mature contractor processes may counteract gaps in the final controls’ implementation. In addition to NIST SP 800-171 (the default standard under DFARS 252.204-7012), Revision 0.4 now incorporates requirements from the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, ISO 27001, and CIS Critical Security Controls, as well as from “additional DIB inputs.” Notably missing is NIST SP 800-171B, which remains under review.
The DoD is requesting feedback on Revision 0.4 through September 25, 2019, and plans on releasing Revision 0.6 for comment in November 2019. The final CMMC is expected in January 2020.
Contacts
Partner, Crowell Global Advisors Senior Director
- Washington, D.C.
- D | +1.202.624.2698
- Washington, D.C. (CGA)
- D | +1 202.624.2500
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
