1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Double Whammy: NIST Unveils Draft Enhanced Security Requirements and Revisions to NIST SP 800-171

Double Whammy: NIST Unveils Draft Enhanced Security Requirements and Revisions to NIST SP 800-171

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.21.19

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released drafts of NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 and a companion standard NIST SP 800-171B, designed to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) from advanced persistent threats (APTs). 800-171B details 33 “enhanced” controls, reflecting core principles of penetration resistance, damage-limiting operations, and resiliency. Specific controls include those related to segregation, hunt teams, AI-enabled tools, IoT security, and supply chain – some of which arguably do not have firm industry definitions.

Unlike the non-substantive updates to Revision 2, 800-171B will apply only to contractors handling CUI that the government determines is part of a “critical program” or is a “high value asset.” A cost estimate from the Department of Defense – expected to quickly implement 800-171B – anticipates that less than one percent of its contractors will be impacted but that (allowable) costs could exceed $1 million.

Comments for all three documents are due July 19, 2019. 

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights