Talk to an Expert
Blog · February 20, 2024

CMMC 2.0: Balancing Cybersecurity and Cost for Defense Contractors

The Department of Defense’s (DoD) recent announcement of the proposed rule for the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0 program is poised to bring significant changes to the defense industry, especially regarding cost implications for defense contractors. 

CMMC 2.0 marks a strategic shift from its predecessor, addressing prominent cost concerns under the CMMC 1.0 framework. Here are how the new model impacts costs: 

 

Self-Assessments: For Level 1 and some Level 2 assessments, contractors can conduct self-assessments, reducing the need for expensive third-party evaluations. 

 

Government Assessors: For Level 3 assessments, the DoD will use government assessors, thereby minimizing the financial burden on contractors. 

 

Streamlined Levels: Reducing the levels from five to three simplifies the process, potentially reducing compliance costs. 

 

 

This reformed approach is a meaningful change, especially for smaller contractors who previously faced high compliance costs. By allowing more self-assessments and reducing the complexity of the levels, the DoD is making cybersecurity compliance more accessible and affordable. 

However, contractors must understand that while costs may be reduced, the responsibility for robust cybersecurity still is paramount. The streamlined approach does not mean relaxed security; it is about making compliance more manageable and cost-effective. 

The DoD estimates that these changes will lead to overall program cost reductions, a welcome development for the defense industry. Contractors should take this opportunity to reassess their cybersecurity strategies and align them with the new CMMC 2.0 requirements, ensuring they are both compliant and cost-efficient. 

 

 

To Try Out Our Solution for Free: Click Here

To Get in Contact with Us: Click Here or Reach us by:

Phone: (603) 484-5007

Email: sales@regdox.com

See the enclave in action.

The Compliant Computing Enclave keeps CUI inside one boundary, with your endpoints out of scope and the evidence trail already built.

Talk to an Expert
Keep reading

More from the blog

September 3, 2026

Week 6: Too Embedded to Reject

How GCC High vendor lock-in changes the decision Last week, we examined the assessor problem. This...

Read it →

August 26, 2026

Week 5: FedRAMP’s Assessor Problem

Why FedRAMP assessor independence matters Last week, we examined the larger architecture problem. This week, we...

Read it →

August 20, 2026

Week 4: The Problem Did Not Stop with Encryption

Why GCC High security architecture matters Last week, we focused on the encryption question. This week,...

Read it →