The Three Pillars of CMMC Success: A Strategic Framework for Defense Contractors, Subcontractors, and MSPs in 2026

Achieving CMMC compliance depends on three pillars, where technology, operations, and verification work together to produce the objective evidence modern defense contracts demand. This article outlines a strategic framework to help Defense Industrial Base (DIB) contractors, subcontractors, and their Managed Service Providers navigate the transition to CMMC 2.0 with confidence.

The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0 represents a fundamental shift in how the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) approaches cybersecurity. As of November 2025, organizations operate under Phase 1 of the rollout, where self-assessments remain the standard for most contracts. The strategic inflection point arrives on November 10, 2026, when Phase 2 introduces mandatory third-party C3PAO assessments for new contracts involving prioritized Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

For defense contractors, subcontractors, and Managed Service Providers (MSPs), the question is no longer whether CMMC will impact operations, but how to operationalize it effectively. Success in this landscape requires alignment across three critical areas: the technology vendor, the operational entity (contractors/MSPs), and the assessor. The “Three Pillars of CMMC Success” establishes the structural foundation needed to build audit-ready operations that support both compliance and growth.

The Current Landscape: From Intent to Evidence

The Department of Defense (DoD) estimates that approximately 80,000 entities will eventually require Level 2 certification. This shift moves the industry from a “paper compliance” model based on policy statements to one based on objective evidence.

Implications for organizations: Market access now depends on the ability to produce proof of control implementation. DIB contractors must verify their own posture and that of their vendors. At the same time, MSPs must demonstrate consistent audit readiness to remain viable partners in the defense supply chain. Those unable to provide audit-ready artifacts may find themselves excluded from opportunities.

Implications: This regulatory shift creates clear differentiation in the market. Those who can demonstrate consistent operations through documented evidence become strategic partners essential to their clients’ compliance efforts. Organizations unable to provide audit ready artifacts may find themselves effectively excluded from defense supply chain opportunities.

The Three Pillars Framework

Readiness requires coordination across three distinct entities:

• Pillar 1 -The Technology Vendor: Provides platforms with secure architecture, validated cryptography, and audit-capable outputs.
• Pillar 2 -The Operational Entity: Implements disciplined process that generate evidence of effectiveness.
• Pillar 3 – The Assessor: Validates implementation against NIST SP 800-171 requirements.

Weakness in any pillar destabilizes the entire compliance foundation. A capable platform (Pillar 1) is ineffective without disciplined operations (Pillar 2), and compliant operations can fail if evidence is not presented clearly to the assessor (Pillar 3).

Pillar 1 – Technology Platform Capabilities

The Foundation of Secure Design
While the DIB contractor retains ultimate responsibility for compliance, technology selection dictates the feasibility of that compliance. Platforms must support evidence generation rather than hinder it.

Hardened Architecture: Systems should ideally operate on architectures configured to industry standards, such as Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks. This establishes a documented baseline for Configuration Management (CM) without requiring manual kernel hardening.

FIPS 140-3 Cryptography: Protecting CUI confidentiality requires validated cryptography (NIST SP 800-171 SC.L2-3.13.11). It is not enough to use “strong” encryption; the module itself must be FIPS validated.

Data Residency: Export controls (ITAR/EAR) often mandate that technical data remain within the U.S. Cloud platforms must offer geographic guarantees to satisfy Media Protection (MP) requirements.

Pillar 2 – Operational Discipline

Consistent Implementation: Assessors evaluate consistency. The operational entity, whether an internal IT team or an MSP, must translate platform capabilities into repeatable processes.

Active Log Review: CMMC requires review, not just retention (AU.L2-3.3.3). A common failure is configuring systems to save logs but failing to establish a review cadence. Operations must include continuous monitoring and documented investigation of security events.

Clear Responsibility Boundaries: Compliance gaps often hide in the “grey areas” between a contractor and their MSP. The Shared Responsibility Matrix (SRM) is a critical tool here. It must explicitly map every control to a responsible party -defining who patches the OS, who enforces MFA, and who holds the evidence.

Evidence as Output: Technical outputs (patch reports, access logs) must be paired with ticketing records to build defensible control narratives.

Pillar 3 -Third-Party Verification

The Role of Formal Assessment: C3PAOs conduct validation against the 110 practices of NIST SP 800-171. Preparation requires viewing operations through the assessor’s lens.

Self-Assessment Rigor: Phase 1 self-assessments are formal declarations to the U.S. Government. Organizations should prepare as if a third-party audit were imminent, ensuring evidence stands on its own merits.

Engagement Models:

• Support Model: The MSP manages the client’s environment using client-provided tools, keeping the MSP’s own infrastructure largely out of scope.
• Certification Model: The MSP achieves its own CMMC Level 2 certification, allowing them to offer “Enclave as a Service.” This relieves the contractor of significant burden but requires the MSP to maintain a mature, audited environment.

N‑able’s Approach to Platform Security
N‑able platforms are designed to support Pillar 1 capabilities with Pillar 2 operational needs, streamlining the path to Pillar 3 validation.

• Secure by Design: N‑central operates on AlmaLinux configured to CIS Benchmarks, allowing partners to inherit a hardened baseline.
• Validated Cryptography: Take Control includes integrated FIPS validated cryptographic libraries, meeting the strict encryption requirements for remote access to CUI environments.
• Sovereignty & Availability: Cove Data Protection offers 30+ global data centers, allowing MSPs to pin backup data to U.S.-only repositories to support data sovereignty.
• Operational Clarity: The N‑central Shared Responsibility Matrix feature sheet pre-maps platform controls to CMMC requirements, clearly identifying vendor-provided capabilities versus MSP responsibilities.

Practical 90-Day Readiness Plan

Organizations can begin assessment preparation through focused near-term activities:

• Define Strategy: Explicitly choose between the Support or Certification model and document scope boundaries.
• Map Responsibilities: Utilize a Shared Responsibility Matrix to assign ownership for every artifact (logs, reports, screenshots).
• Operationalize Evidence: Transition from ad-hoc reporting to standardized workflows. Link patch reports and log reviews to ticketing records.
• Secure Management: Enforce MFA and role-based access on all management platforms. Verify FIPS status on remote access tools.
• Test Defenses: Select 5 to 8 controls (e.g., Access Control, Audit) and assemble complete evidence packets to identify gaps before the formal assessment.

Building Confidence Through Alignment

CMMC success is not a product; it is a process of alignment. By understanding the interdependencies between vendor capabilities, operational discipline, and assessment expectations, DIB contractors and MSPs can build defensible programs that secure both national interests and business continuity.

N‑able provides platforms designed to support evidence generation and secure operations. Combined with disciplined MSP implementation, these capabilities enable organizations to approach assessment with confidence.

Ready to put the three pillars into practice?

Download the N‑central Shared Responsibility Matrix Feature Sheet from the N‑able Resource Library to see how platform controls map to CMMC requirements.

Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or compliance advice. CMMC requirements are determined by the Department of Defense. Consult with qualified CMMC Registered Practitioners for specific guidance.