Awareness Continuum GRC

Red Teaming for CMMC Validation: Simulating Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs)

by Continuum GRC 0 Comment
Shattered red and blue glass with a stylized person.

The CMMC framework represents a critical evolution in securing the DIB. For organizations handling Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in the highest-risk contexts, achieving CMMC Level 3 compliance requires defenses against sophisticated adversaries like nation-state APTs. 

Traditional compliance checks and penetration testing are insufficient to validate these controls. Instead, red teaming—a full-scope, adversarial simulation—is essential to stress-test an organization’s ability to detect, respond to, and mitigate APT-style campaigns. 

This article discusses red team penetration testing in the context of CMMC compliance and provides insights into using it to ensure an effective security posture.

 

Understanding CMMC Level 3 and APT Threats

CMMC Level 3 mandates 110+ practices derived from NIST SP 800-171 and NIST SP 800-172, focusing on proactive cybersecurity measures to protect CUI from advanced adversaries. Key domains include:

  • Access Control (AC): Restricting privileged access and enforcing multi-factor authentication (MFA).
  • Incident Response (IR): Developing advanced threat-hunting capabilities.
  • System and Communications Protection (SC): Segmenting CUI environments.
  • Risk Management (RM): Continuously monitoring supply chain risks.

Nation-state APTs (e.g., APT29, APT41) employ stealthy, multi-phase campaigns that leverage zero-day exploits, credential theft, and living-off-the-land techniques to target vulnerabilities across at least one (but typically more than one) of these attack surfaces. 

 

Red Teaming vs. Traditional Penetration Testing

Shattered red and blue glass with a stylized person.

Traditional penetration testing and red teaming serve distinct yet complementary roles in cybersecurity. Penetration testing is a targeted, technical assessment focused on identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities in predefined systems. 

It follows a structured methodology: scanning for weaknesses, exploiting flaws like misconfigurations or unpatched software, and delivering a report with remediation steps. The goal is to “find and fix” technical gaps, often within days or weeks. Tests are typically announced and limited in scope. They prioritize speed over stealth and yield actionable insights, such as CVSS-scored vulnerabilities.

Red teaming, by contrast, simulates advanced adversaries (nation-state APTs) to evaluate organizational resilience. It employs stealthy, multi-phase campaigns—phishing, lateral movement, credential theft—over weeks or months, mimicking real-world tactics. 

Unlike penetration testing, red teaming operates covertly, testing detection/response processes, security culture, and architectural flaws. The goal is less about identifying threats than determining whether an organization can withstand sustained attacks. The outcomes focus on systemic weaknesses, such as dwell time, detection gaps, or flawed incident response playbooks. 

Read teaming is indispensable for frameworks like CMMC Level 3, where validating defenses against sophisticated threats is mandatory. 

 

Designing APT Simulations: A Phased Approach

Practical APT simulations require a structured, intelligence-driven methodology that mirrors the lifecycle of real-world adversaries. To validate CMMC Level 3 controls, red teams must adopt a multi-phase approach—spanning reconnaissance, initial access, lateral movement, and exfiltration—while integrating nation-state tactics and procedures. This ensures exercises test technical defenses and expose gaps in detection workflows, incident response, and organizational resilience under sustained attack.

1. Scoping and Threat Intelligence Integration

  • Define Boundaries: Identify in-scope assets (e.g., CUI repositories, ICS systems) and rules of engagement (e.g., no disruptive malware).
  • Threat Modeling: Use frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK to map APT behaviors. For example, APT29 focuses on cloud exploitation, OAuth token theft, and PowerShell-based lateral movement, while APT38 deploys ransomware as a distraction for data exfiltration.
  • Tools and Infrastructure: Mimic APT toolchains (e.g., Cobalt Strike for C2, Mimikatz for credential dumping) while avoiding reliance on Metasploit for stealth.

 

2. Reconnaissance and Initial Access

  • Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT): Harvest employee emails via LinkedIn or breached databases to craft targeted phishing lures.
  • Weaponization: Develop malicious payloads tied to CMMC requirements, such as phishing attacks that bypass MFA (AC.3.017) via adversary-in-the-middle attacks.
  • Supply Chain Compromise: Inject malware into vendor software updates.

 

3. Execution and Lateral Movement

  • Credential Theft: Use LSASS dumpers or Kerberoasting to escalate privileges (AC.3.018).
  • Lateral Movement: Test network segmentation (SC.3.180) by pivoting through misconfigured jump servers.
  • Persistence: Establish backdoors via scheduled tasks or rogue domain controllers.

 

4. Exfiltration and Impact

  • Data Exfiltration: Use DNS tunneling or encrypted HTTPS channels to extract mock CUI (SC.3.183).
  • Breadth Testing: Validate logging/monitoring controls by gauging detection latency during exfiltration.

 

Challenges in APT-Centric Red Teaming

Simulating Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) to validate CMMC Level 3 controls introduces unique operational and ethical complexities. Unlike conventional penetration testing, APT-centric red teaming requires balancing stealth, realism, and resource constraints while avoiding unintended disruption.

  • Zero-Day Simulation: Ethical and operational constraints limit real zero-day use. Instead, repurpose known vulnerabilities (e.g., ProxyLogon) in novel ways.
  • Stealth vs. Detection: Overly stealthy campaigns risk going undetected, undermining validation goals. Balance evasion with controlled exposure to test monitoring.
  • Resource Intensity: APT simulations demand cross-functional coordination (IT, legal, leadership) and threat intelligence expertise.

 

Best Practices for Advanced Practitioners

  • Adversary Emulation Plans: Use frameworks like MITRE CALDERA to automate TTP replication.
  • During exercises, purple Teaming: Collaborate with blue teams to refine detection rules (e.g., Sigma, Splunk ES).
  • Metrics-Driven Reporting: Track dwell time, detection rates, and MITRE ATT&CK technique coverage.
  • Continuous Validation: Conduct quarterly micro-exercises (e.g., spear phishing) to maintain CMMC readiness.

 

Coordinate Your Penetration Testing with a Unified Compliance Platform: Continuum GRC

Validating CMMC Level 3 controls requires a paradigm shift from compliance-centric audits to adversarial resilience. By designing red team exercises that replicate the tradecraft of APTs, organizations can uncover systemic gaps in their cybersecurity posture, from inadequate segmentation to latent detection failures. 

Continuum GRC is a cloud platform that stays ahead of the curve, including support for all certifications (along with our sister company and assessors, Lazarus Alliance). 

We are the only FedRAMP and StateRAMP-authorized compliance and risk management solution worldwide.

Continuum GRC is a proactive cyber security® and the only FedRAMP and StateRAMP-authorized cybersecurity audit platform worldwide. Call 1-888-896-6207 to discuss your organization’s cybersecurity needs and learn how we can help protect its systems and ensure compliance.

Continuum GRC

Website: