1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |NIST Finalizes Enhanced Security Requirements for Combating Advanced Cyber Threats

NIST Finalizes Enhanced Security Requirements for Combating Advanced Cyber Threats

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.09.21

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently released the final version of NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-172, Enhanced Security Requirements for Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information. Designed to supplement the requirements in NIST SP 800-171—the applicable standard under DFARS 252.204-7012—800-172 provides 35 enhanced security requirements to protect controlled unclassified information (CUI) associated with critical programs and high value assets from sophisticated adversaries referred to as advanced persistent threats (APTs).

Although expected to impact relatively few contractors, where applicable, agencies may include select enhanced security requirements from 800-172 in their contract provisions. The Department of Defense (DoD) has also incorporated several of the requirements identified in prior drafts of 800-172 into maturity levels 4 and 5 of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC).

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....