.svg)
Are you feeling the pressure yet?
CMMC 2.0 is already in motion, and the organizations that thought they had time are now scrambling. Contractors are being pushed to prove how they build secure software, and the gap between what teams think they’re doing and what CMMC actually requires is getting people in trouble.
Threat modeling is sitting right at the center of that gap, and too many teams keep sidelining it as optional when it has become essential for demonstrating real security maturity.
The frustration is real because the consequences are real.
Missed controls start to pile up, audits stall, and contract opportunities suddenly get pulled from your pipeline. Teams keep discovering the same painful truth: secure coding guidelines and static analysis tools don’t cover the evidence CMMC demands. Auditors expect to see the reasoning behind engineering decisions, the risks you identified, and the actions you took to address them.
This matters right now because every assessment window is shrinking. Auditors are asking harder questions, contractors are seeing more intense oversight, and engineering teams are stuck generating proof they never planned for.
Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or CMMC 2.0, wants proof that your team designs, builds, and ships software with security baked in. The framework’s objectives push you toward the same place every time. You need a repeatable way to identify threats at design time, record decisions, tie mitigations to code and tests, and show auditors that risk was considered before release. That is threat modeling, packaged in a way that fits engineering reality and audit language.
This control asks you to deliver training that maps to roles. That means developers receive secure coding guidance that aligns with the languages and frameworks they maintain, architects get design level security patterns, and product owners learn how to accept or reject residual risk.
This one directs you to use engineering principles during design and development. Auditors read that as clear evidence that your teams identify trust boundaries, analyze risks during design, and choose controls that reduce those risks before coding starts. The cleanest way to satisfy this is a lightweight threat modeling workflow integrated into design reviews.
This practice wants a periodic assessment of risk to operations, assets, and individuals. For software that handles CUI, that assessment only works when it happens at the application and service level, not just at the enterprise layer. The assessment needs to show likelihood, impact, and residual risk tied to the specific design and implementation choices your teams made.
Once risk is identified, this practice expects mitigation planning and execution. That means your threat findings, design risks, and abuse cases lead to backlog items with owners, due dates, and testable acceptance criteria.
Level 3 raises the bar by requiring a threat informed approach. That means your assessment consumes current threat intelligence, maps it to your architecture, and evaluates how adversary behaviors would play against your controls.
Run this play and you get more than a checkbox. Auditors see consistent and defensible artifacts that map cleanly to AT, SC, and RA practices, and your teams get a process that builds security into design and delivery without slowing down releases.
Auditors want to see how your team models threats, how those threats connect to design and code, and how decisions turned into controls that now run in production. The conversation goes smoother when you can open a folder and walk through clean artifacts that tell the story end to end. Just make it obvious that your program runs on repeatable workflows, produces durable evidence, and keeps that evidence tied to the systems that handle CUI.
Start with design. Move through analysis. Land on mitigation and verification. Keep every step linked in the same system your engineers already use. The following artifacts cover what assessors ask for in practice.
Include a system overview, data classification for CUI and related data types, an asset inventory for services and stores, and a clear list of trust boundaries. Diagrams should include a legend, version, author, and a link to the repository path that owns the diagram source. A Markdown system profile next to each service keeps this crisp.
Show external entities, processes, data stores, and flows. Label authentication points, crypto handoffs, and network controls. Include references to ingress and egress rules, identity providers, and key management systems.
Use STRIDE per data flow, LINDD for lifecycle coverage, or a lightweight abuse case catalog. Document the method, the scope, and the date. Keep it short and consistent so teams can run it during design reviews.
Include likelihood, impact, evidence, and assumptions. Map each entry to ATT&CK technique IDs where relevant. Keep the scoring scale documented in the same file so the math is transparent.
For each threat or abuse case, show the chosen control, the standard reference, and the evidence of implementation. Reference OWASP ASVS requirements, NIST 800-53 controls, CIS benchmarks, or internal standards. Link to the story or task that implements the control.
Each mitigation should link to the pull request, configuration change, and associated tests. Negative tests and security unit tests should live in the repo and run in CI. Capture the CI job name and a recent build run ID for quick lookup.
Show who made the decision, the time limit, the compensating controls, and the planned verification. Store approvals in the same ticketing system to keep the trail intact.
Diagrams, models, and matrices should have versions tied to releases. A simple CHANGELOG entry that references the model update keeps the story coherent for assessors.
Export a PDF or HTML snapshot of the model at release time, attach it to the release artifact, and keep the source editable in Git. Threat Dragon, IriusRisk, or Microsoft TMT can help. SecurityReview.ai can convert findings to control mappings and package an audit friendly bundle.
Role based training needs to reflect your stack and your SDLC controls. Auditors want to see depth for developers and architects, clarity for product roles, and completion data that proves coverage in the current cycle.
Map developers, architects, SREs, testers, and product owners to the specific skills required for systems that process CUI. Include language frameworks, cloud platforms, identity models, crypto usage, and data protection patterns.
List modules for input validation, authentication flows, authorization models, session handling, secret management, error handling, logging, and secure configuration. Tie each module to the controls used in your SDLC and to OWASP ASVS sections.
Use labs that exercise your framework and cloud services. Keep completion artifacts such as lab reports, challenge outputs, or screenshots with timestamps. AppSecEngineer provides labs and role based paths that align well with modern stacks and keeps evidence export straightforward.
Store completion, quiz results, and renewal dates. Track minimum hours or credits per role. Show that new hires complete training within a defined window and that teams refresh on a regular cadence.
Correlate training modules to code review findings and test failures. Show a trend that indicates reduced repeat defects for trained teams. A simple quarterly report makes this credible.
A secure SDLC policy earns respect when it defines where modeling happens, who owns it, and which artifacts are required for a release. Keep it short, precise, and enforceable in tooling.
New service, major architecture change, sensitive data flow added, auth or crypto change, or a net-new third party integration. List them in the policy and mirror them in your design review checklist.
Require a context overview, data classification, DFD with trust boundaries, a named analysis method, a threat register, and a mitigation matrix with control references. Tie acceptance criteria to these artifacts in your design review workflow.
Architects lead modeling, developers own mitigations, product owners approve risk, and security reviews evidence. Name the roles and map them to your RACI.
A design review cannot close without a model ID, and a release cannot proceed without links to mitigations and test results. Keep the gate in the same pipeline that handles other compliance checks.
Store model snapshots with releases, retain for the policy period, and make artifacts accessible to assessors without manual collection.
Time bound approvals, compensating controls, and a plan to revalidate. Require reapproval on scope changes.
Run this play and your program stops sounding like a slogan and starts reading like an operating system for security. Auditors get clarity, your teams keep shipping, and your evidence can stand on its own without a long meeting to explain every decision.
You want fewer surprises before release, fewer meetings during audits, and fewer late fixes that keep teams in weekend mode. Threat modeling delivers that when it runs as a lightweight and repeatable step in design and planning, and when its outputs flow directly into code, tests, and change management. The result is fewer systemic failures reaching production, faster approvals during assessments, and a clean paper trail that stands up without a long explanation.
Systemic risks hide in architecture choices, identity flows, and data movement. Design reviews that are only surface level reviews miss these patterns because they focus on individual stories rather than end to end behavior. A consistent modeling session surfaces the cross service issues that create high impact incidents.
Auditors want to see that your secure design decisions are current and repeatable. That means the model and its artifacts evolve with the system and are discoverable in the same place engineers ship code.
Manual models drift without input from real systems and conversations. Tooling that pulls from the sources your teams already use keeps the model grounded in reality and reduces review fatigue.
Run this play and compliance stops draining engineering hours while security outcomes improve in measurable ways. The work produces artifacts that matter during assessments, and the same workflow reduces the chance of a costly incident by removing architectural mistakes before they become production outages.
For security that can keep pace with delivery, you need a playbook that starts at intake, uses AI to capture design details without extra meetings, and enforces lightweight checks inside the tools engineers already use. Here's how that looks like:
Threat modeling sticks when it attaches to the moment a team proposes change. That moment is a product RFC, a new service ticket, or a major integration request. Add a short design template to that intake so teams declare assets, data classes, trust boundaries, and external dependencies on day one.
Manual transcription from documents and chat transcripts to models creates drift. AI assisted tooling reduces that gap by ingesting the artifacts engineers already produce.
Threat modeling needs a cadence that matches planning and release habits. Short sessions, clear outputs, and gates that live in the pipeline keep the practice lean.
Trust grows when the same automation that guards code coverage and linting also guards security design checks.
Adopt this playbook and threat modeling becomes a normal engineering activity that scales across teams, supports sprint velocity, and produces audit grade evidence as a side effect of delivery. You get fewer meetings, faster decisions, and a cleaner path through assessments because the work lives where engineering already works.
You want a slide that procurement understands, an assessor can verify, and engineering can execute against without translation. The trick is to show how the work your teams already do lands on the exact practices that CMMC measures. The table below gives you the structure. Drop it into your deck, add your system names and links to live evidence, and you have a walkable story that stands up in an audit and a sourcing review.
“Our developers and architects complete role based training mapped to AT.L2-3.2.2, with curriculum tied to our languages and cloud services. Completion, recency, and quiz results are exported from the LMS and linked to the repos that handle CUI. Pull requests enforce our secure coding checklist, which demonstrates SC.L2-3.13.2 in daily work.”
“Our design reviews include a service context, a data flow diagram with trust boundaries, and a structured threat analysis. Each threat maps to ASVS and NIST 800-53 references and becomes a tracked mitigation with tests. The evidence bundle attaches to the release artifact. This satisfies SC.L2-3.13.2 and RA.L2-3.11.1 with clear traceability.”
“We align identified threats to MITRE ATT&CK techniques, document attack paths through our architecture, and show which controls break those paths. The results and targeted tests are included in the bundle for the in scope system. That addresses RA.L3-3.11.1e with current adversary behaviors and control validation.”
“Our AppSec program produces machine readable bundles per release, including model version, control mappings, test run IDs, and approvals. These bundles are available for due diligence and supplier performance reviews and map directly to the practices listed on the slide.”
“Supplier Portal Service, model v7, release 2025.04.12”
Left column shows Secure coding and Threat modeling with one sentence each on what the team does today. Right column lists the control IDs and links to artifacts. Keep the artifact links live and point to the exact repo paths and LMS exports.
Training completion for in scope roles in the last 12 months, percentage of high and medium threats with mitigations and passing tests in the last release, count of time bound exceptions and next review date. Keep the numbers current and source them from CI and LMS exports so you can back them up during questions.
Use this structure and your AppSec spend translates cleanly into compliance outcomes. Procurement sees a program that can deliver and renew, auditors see practices tied to artifacts, and engineering sees requirements that live where they already work.
CMMC is entering the industry at a pace that leaves very little room for slow adjustments. Leaders who assume they can approach it like past compliance frameworks are already running into surprises, because this model expects engineering proof, instead of policy comfort.
The biggest opportunity right now is for teams that build durable workflows early. CMMC will mature quickly over the next year, and assessments will lean toward automated evidence, control validation, and threat informed reasoning.
Security leaders should also pay attention to how procurement language is evolving. Prime contractors are already asking for artifacts that resemble CMMC expectations, even ahead of formal enforcement.
we45’s Threat Modeling as a Service works as an extension of your engineering and security teams. We pair your architects and developers with senior threat modeling specialists who run design reviews with you, maintain your models, automate evidence generation, and keep your workflows aligned with emerging CMMC expectations. It gives you the capacity and expertise you need without adding headcount, and it stabilizes your program while the ecosystem continues to form around the new requirements.
Take the initiative now and use threat modeling to anchor your program in a direction that will hold up as CMMC develops. This is the window where early clarity turns into long-term advantage.
CMMC 2.0, particularly at Level 2 and above, mandates demonstrable evidence that security is intentionally designed and built into software. Threat modeling is the repeatable process that produces this evidence. It identifies threats at the design stage, records the rationale for engineering decisions, links specific mitigations to code and tests, and proves that risk was considered before release. This directly satisfies the intent of multiple CMMC practices, including those in the SC (System and Communications Protection) and RA (Risk Assessment) families.
Threat modeling and its associated artifacts provide evidence for several key CMMC practices: SC.L2-3.13.2 (Security Engineering): Requires using engineering principles during design and development, which threat modeling addresses by clearly documenting assets, trust boundaries, design analysis, and chosen controls. RA.L2-3.11.1 (Risk Assessment): Mandates periodic application-level risk assessment. Threat modeling generates a current risk register with likelihood, impact, and residual risk tied to specific design choices. RA.L2-3.11.2 (Risk Response): Demands documented mitigation plans. Threat modeling converts identified threats and risks into traceable backlog items, complete with owners, due dates, and testable acceptance criteria, verifying execution in CI. RA.L3-3.11.1e (Threat Informed Risk Assessment): At Level 3, this requires consuming current threat intelligence (e.g., MITRE ATT&CK) and mapping adversary behaviors to the system architecture to validate control effectiveness. AT.L2-3.2.2 (Role-Based Training): The process links secure coding and design principles to required training paths, ensuring developers and architects have competencies aligned to their CUI-handling systems.
Auditors look for a coherent, traceable story across durable artifacts. The core documents and evidence include: Architecture Context Document: System overview, data classification (especially for CUI), asset inventory, and clearly defined trust boundaries. Data Flow Diagram (DFD): Versioned diagrams showing external entities, processes, data stores, and flows, with authentication points and security controls labeled. Threat Register: A log of identified threats and abuse cases, including likelihood, impact, rationale, and, for Level 3, mapping to MITRE ATT&CK technique IDs. Mitigation Traceability Matrix: A document linking each high or medium risk threat to a specific, implemented control (e.g., an OWASP ASVS or NIST 800-53 reference) and the corresponding engineering ticket or story. Engineering Links: Direct references (e.g., pull request IDs, CI job run IDs) that close the loop, proving the mitigation was coded, tested, and deployed. Model Snapshots: Versioned PDF or HTML exports of the model attached to the release artifact.
The key is to implement a lightweight, repeatable workflow that uses existing engineering tooling: Start at Intake: Require a short design template during product RFC or new service ticket creation with mandatory fields: system purpose, data classes (CUI), entry/exit points, and identity model. Short Analysis Sessions: Run brief, method-driven analysis (e.g., a 20-minute STRIDE pass per data flow) during backlog refinement or design reviews, focusing only on changed or new areas. Convert Threats to Backlog: Turn credible threats into backlog items during sprint planning, ensuring each item defines acceptance criteria, references a control standard, and includes a negative test for CI. Enforce Gates in CI: Use automation to validate that pull requests reference the threat IDs they mitigate, update the model version, and run the associated security tests.
Automation helps prevent model drift and reduces manual effort by: AI-Assisted Capture: Parsing design documents (Markdown RFCs, diagrams) to auto-populate asset lists, data flows, and trust boundaries, flagging missing information. Scope Change Detection: Monitoring collaboration channels (Slack, Jira) for signals of new entry points or third-party dependencies, triggering suggested model updates. Control Mapping and Test Generation: Automatically aligning identified threats to frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK, attaching OWASP ASVS and NIST 800-53 references to mitigations, and generating test stubs for CI. Evidence Bundling: Producing a machine-readable artifact (JSON/YAML) at build time that includes the model revision, control mappings, test results, and approvals, making audit preparation a simple retrieval process.
%20Vulnerabilities%20What%20Every%20Enterprise%20Should%20Know.png)
