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

Partner and Crowell Global Advisors Senior Director
- Washington, D.C.
- D | +1.202.624.2698
- Washington, D.C. (CGA)
- D | +1 202.624.2500
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
