Home > Security and Compliance Blog > - > How to Overcome CMMC Level 2 File Security Gaps with Proven Tools

How to Overcome CMMC Level 2 File Security Gaps with Proven Tools

by Danielle Barbour updated January 7, 2026 CMMC Compliance

Reading Time: 7 minutes

CMMC Level 2 raises the bar for protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) by aligning with 110 NIST SP 800-171 controls—so file security gaps become audit findings, lost bids, or worse, data exposure. The fastest path to readiness is a focused toolkit: automated CUI discovery and data classification, secure file transfer with FIPS-validated encryption, rights management, Zero Trust access, and continuous logging and evidence capture.

This article shows exactly how to deploy those tools, map them to Level 2 requirements, and operationalize audit readiness. If you want a single, unified approach purpose-built for CUI, the Kiteworks Private Data Network centralizes end-to-end encrypted file transfer, granular access controls, and a tamper-evident audit trail across email, web, SFTP, and APIs—all engineered to streamline Level 2 compliance and reduce risk at scale (see the Kiteworks CMMC 2.0 compliance overview).

Table of Contents

CMMC 2.0 Compliance Roadmap for DoD Contractors

Read Now

Executive Summary

Main idea: Achieve CMMC Level 2 file security by deploying a focused set of proven tools—automated CUI discovery/classification, secure transfer with FIPS-validated encryption, rights management, Zero Trust access, and comprehensive logging—to eliminate audit gaps and reduce risk.

Why you should care: Using a unified, tool-driven approach accelerates audit readiness, safeguards CUI across channels, prevents costly findings and lost contracts, and streamlines evidence collection for third-party assessments.

Key Takeaways

Focus on proven tools. Concentrate on automated CUI discovery, encryption, access control, DRM, and centralized audit logging to close Level 2 gaps efficiently.
Map tools to controls. Align features to NIST SP 800-171 practices so audit evidence directly supports control requirements and assessment objectives.
Adopt Zero Trust access. Enforce MFA, least privilege, and continuous permission reviews to prevent unauthorized CUI exposure and privilege creep.
Automate evidence collection. Stream SIEM forwarding, configuration snapshots, and training records to reduce manual effort and speed auditor review.
Consider a unified platform. A solution like Kiteworks centralizes encrypted exchange across email, web, SFTP, and APIs with a tamper-evident audit trail for Level 2 readiness.

CMMC Level 2 File Security Requirements

CMMC Level 2 is a Department of Defense (DoD) cybersecurity framework aligning with NIST SP 800-171 to ensure organizations rigorously protect CUI against cyber threats and unauthorized access. It requires full implementation of the standard’s 110 controls across people, process, and technology, with third-party assessment for most contracts handling prioritized CUI.

The controls most relevant to file security emphasize access control, encryption in transit and at rest, identity and authentication, auditing, and incident response—capabilities that, when automated, drive audit-readiness and lower residual risk. For context and scope, see the CMMC 2.0 levels overview and its alignment to NIST 800-171.

Key control families for file security:

Gap Analysis for File Security and Compliance

Start by mapping your current NIST SP 800-171 implementation: where CUI is created, stored, transmitted, and shared; which systems, repositories, and workflows touch it; and how controls actually operate day to day. Use automated network discovery and vulnerability assessment tools to pinpoint technical and documentation gaps tied to 800-171 practices, then document findings and corrective actions—automation here materially improves audit outcomes and cuts manual effort.

A simple checklist to run:

Inventory assets and data flows touching CUI (on-prem, cloud, endpoints, email, file shares).
Evaluate each relevant control’s implementation (policy, process, and technical safeguards).
Log findings, assign owners, and track POA&Ms to closure.
Reassess on a cadence (e.g., monthly/quarterly) to verify remediation and prevent control drift.

A comprehensive CMMC gap analysis can help you shortlist tools by capability—classification, encryption, access control, and audit logging—before piloting them for fit and coverage.

Identification and Classification for Controlled Unclassified Information

CUI is sensitive information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to federal laws, regulations, or policies. Because CUI frequently hides in unstructured content—documents, CAD files, exports, and emails—manual tagging fails at scale.

Practical steps:

Deploy automated content discovery and data classification across repositories and endpoints to find, tag, and report on CUI in both structured and unstructured sources. Weak CUI identification is a top cause of failed audits—and a fixable one with classification tooling.
Map CUI data flows between systems and users to reveal exposure points during creation, sharing, and storage.
Enforce consistent labeling, version control, and centralized storage for CUI artifacts to simplify control enforcement and evidence collection.

Technical Controls for Secure File Exchange

Technical controls close the most common Level 2 file security gaps: secure file transfer, strong encryption, rights management, robust access control, and comprehensive auditing. For organizations needing a unified, cross-channel solution, a platform like Kiteworks consolidates SFTP, email, web, and API-based file exchange with end-to-end encryption, zero trust security access, and a single audit trail.

Feature-to-control mapping:

Technical control	Example tools/features	CMMC/NIST 800-171 practices	Outcome
Secure file transfer	TLS 1.2+/HTTPS, SFTP, managed file transfer	3.13.8 (protect CUI in transit)	Confidentiality and integrity during exchange
FIPS-validated cryptography	FIPS 140-2 validated modules	3.13.11 (use FIPS-validated crypto)	Government-trusted crypto for CUI
Encryption at rest	AES-256, encrypted storage/document repositories	3.13.16 (protect CUI at rest)	Limits exposure from device loss or compromise
Digital Rights Management (DRM)	View/edit/download/forward controls, watermarking	3.1.1, 3.1.2 (access enforcement)	Restricts use to authorized users and purposes
MFA and SSO	MFA for all users; conditional access	3.5.3 (MFA for privileged and network access)	Strong identity assurance
Least privilege and RBAC	Role-based access; just-in-time access	3.1.5 (least privilege)	Minimizes unnecessary CUI access
Comprehensive audit logging	Immutable, centralized file access/event logs	3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.7, 3.3.8 (audit and protect logs)	Full traceability for investigations and audits
DLP/content inspection	Pattern and label-based inspection on upload/share	3.1.3 (control flow of CUI)	Prevents unauthorized sharing or exfiltration

FIPS-Validated Encryption and Rights Management

FIPS-validated encryption ensures encryption algorithms and implementations are rigorously tested and government-approved, which is critical for CMMC file security. Implement encryption in transit (TLS 1.2/1.3, SSH) and at rest (AES 256 encryption) using platforms that provide FIPS 140-3 Level 1 validated encryption cryptographic modules.

Rights management controls—granular permissions over view, edit, download, forwarding, expiration, and revocation—ensure only authorized users can access CUI throughout the file lifecycle. Applied consistently, DRM reduces oversharing risk and supports access enforcement and non-repudiation expectations.

Zero Trust Access Controls with MFA and Least Privilege

Zero trust architecture is a security model requiring strict identity verification for every person and device, regardless of network location. Enforce MFA universally, define least-privilege roles using RBAC, and regularly audit permissions to ensure access matches job function. Integrate access policies with your identity provider (e.g., Active Directory/Entra ID) and monitor access requests for anomalies—privileged elevation, unusual geo-location, or off-hours bulk downloads.

Automated Logging, Monitoring, and Evidence Collection

Comprehensive, automated logging is non-negotiable at Level 2: capture file access, permission changes, authentication events, and administrative actions; forward them to a SIEM (e.g., Splunk, Elastic) for correlation, alerting, and retention.

Automate the following evidence artifacts:

File access attempts (success/failure), permission changes, and data sharing events
User authentication and MFA challenges
Policy updates and configuration changes
Incident response tabletop tests and post-incident reports
Security awareness training and role-based training completion records

Automation pulls logs and proofs directly from source systems, reducing manual sampling and speeding auditor review.

Compliance Documentation and Audit Artifacts

Two documents anchor Level 2 assessments:

System Security Plan (SSP): details implemented controls, system boundaries, and CUI data flows.
Plans of Action and Milestones (POA&M): lists gaps with remediation owners, timelines, and status.

Compliance automation platforms can pre-map evidence requests to 800-171 practices and auto-ingest artifacts from integrated tools, turning continuous control monitoring into an audit-ready package. Maintain a version-controlled repository for policies, control test results, screenshots, and exported logs; structure it by control family so a C3PAO can navigate quickly. See CMMC documentation best practices for guidance.

C3PAO Readiness and Engagement

Unlike Level 1 self-attestation, CMMC Level 2 typically requires a third-party assessment by a C3PAO at least every three years. Prepare by conducting a thorough self-assessment, closing open POA&Ms, assembling documentation, and verifying readiness with internal audits before scheduling. Audit-friendly platforms that centralize evidence and flag gaps proactively can compress fieldwork time and reduce rework.

Continuous Monitoring and Remediation for Compliance

CMMC is not a one-time project. Establish continuous monitoring to prevent control drift: automated vulnerability scans, regular penetration tests, and real-time alerting on configuration or access deviations. Integrate your security and compliance stack so deviations trigger workflows, tickets, and documented remediations, which feed your next assessment cycle. A practical rhythm is: monitor, assess, remediate, and document—supported by dashboards like the CISO Dashboard for executive visibility.

Kiteworks: a Proven Tool for CMMC Level 2 File Security and Compliance

The Kiteworks Private Data Network provides a unified, FIPS-aligned platform for end-to-end encrypted file transfer, granular access control, DRM, and tamper-evident audit trails across email, web, SFTP, and APIs. It maps capabilities to NIST SP 800-171 and CMMC 2.0, consolidating evidence for assessments and reducing risk. Kiteworks supports nearly 90% of CMMC Level 2 requirements out of the box.

Refer to Kiteworks’ CMMC compliance overview and the guide to CMMC 2.0 compliance mapping for sensitive content communications to see how Kiteworks streamlines discovery, classification, Zero Trust access, and centralized logging to operationalize Level 2 audit readiness at enterprise scale.

To learn more, schedule a custom demo today.

Frequently Asked Questions

Common gaps include insufficient CUI identification and labeling, weak or inconsistent access controls, incomplete encryption coverage, and gaps in monitoring and audit logging. Organizations also struggle with drift between documented policies and real-world workflows, ungoverned file-sharing channels (email, SFTP sprawl), and limited evidence capture. Addressing these with automated classification, Zero Trust access, FIPS-validated crypto, and centralized logging closes many Level 2 findings.

Start with CUI discovery to define scope and data flows. Implement FIPS 140-3 Level 1 validated encryption in transit and at rest, then enforce MFA and least privilege with RBAC and conditional access. Centralize audit logging and forward to a SIEM. Add DRM and DLP to control use and prevent exfiltration. Map each control to 800-171 practices and automate evidence collection.

Compliance automation platforms that integrate with identity providers, file transfer/collaboration systems, endpoints, and SIEMs can auto-ingest logs, configurations, and screenshots mapped to 800-171 controls. Tools offering immutable audit trails, standardized reports, and API-based evidence export reduce manual sampling. A unified platform like Kiteworks centralizes exchange and auditing, shortening preparation cycles and enabling continuous readiness across email, web, SFTP, and APIs.

Define scope and CUI data flows, then deploy automated discovery and data classification. Implement FIPS-validated encryption for data in transit and at rest, enforce MFA and least privilege through RBAC, and apply DRM for sensitive files. Centralize logging to a SIEM. Update the SSP and POA&Ms with owners and timelines, pilot tools, and validate effectiveness via internal audits before engaging a C3PAO.

Timelines depend on scope, complexity, and current NIST 800-171 compliance maturity. Many organizations need three to nine months to complete CUI discovery, remediate access and encryption gaps, implement comprehensive logging, and accumulate evidence. Early tool selection, clear POA&M ownership, and pre-assessment walkthroughs with a prospective C3PAO help compress schedules, reduce rework, and improve first-time pass rates.

Additional Resources