The All-New Cybersecurity Risk Management Construct (CSRMC)
Same Pig, Different Lipstick?
In late September, the U.S. Department of War (DoW) unveiled its latest big idea: the Cybersecurity Risk Management Construct (CSRMC).
Billed as a transformative framework to deliver real-time defense “at operational speed,” it arrives wrapped in lofty promises, five-phase lifecycles, and ten shining principles. The pitch? Environments that are hardened, verifiable, continuously monitored, and warfighters who never fall behind.
Sound familiar? It should.
The Ghosts of Frameworks Past
This isn’t the first time we’ve heard it. Over the years, the Department has rolled out framework after framework, each heralded as the answer to cyber risk.
- C&A promised rigor.
- RMF promised flexibility.
- CMMC promised maturity.
Each time, the sales pitch was the same: faster, smarter, lighter, more “operationally relevant.” And each time, reality landed somewhere between incremental improvement and cultural inertia.
What CSRMC Claims to Fix
To be fair, CSRMC does address some real pain points.
- RMF leaned too heavily on checklists and static approvals. A system could be stamped “secure” on paper yet remain vulnerable in practice.
- CSRMC speaks instead of automation, continuous monitoring, DevSecOps, and real-time dashboards.
In other words, the Department is finally talking the same language that industry has been speaking for years. The difference this time? Branding — not necessarily breakthrough.
A “Cultural Fundamental Shift”?
Kattie Arrington, performing the duties of DoW CIO, called CSRMC “a cultural fundamental shift.”
But is it?
Embedding security in design. Validating through testing. Onboarding with monitoring. Sustaining in operations. These aren’t radical ideas. They’re straight from the DevSecOps playbook, commercial best practices, and years of NIST guidance. The real shift isn’t in the framework itself. It’s in whether the Department can actually execute on it.
Even the ten “core principles” feel like déjà vu: automation, continuous monitoring, reciprocity, inheritance, training, resilience. Strong concepts, yes. But hardly revolutionary. They’ve been circulating on PowerPoint decks for over a decade.
Industry Reaction: Hope vs. Cynicism
Not everyone is skeptical. Industry leaders like Travis Howerton of RegScale have hailed CSRMC as a “pivotal shift” away from checklist compliance. And in theory, they’re right; execution done well could push the needle forward.
But history gives reason to pause. We’ve seen this movie before: C&A → DIACAP → RMF → CMMC. Each promised transformation. Each added process and acronyms. Each fell short of the hype.
Timing Is Everything
The rollout timing is no coincidence. Just weeks ago, the Department finalized DFARS changes tied to CMMC. Now CSRMC arrives, reinforcing the message that compliance isn’t a one-time event. That’s true, of course — but again, not new. The defense industrial base has been hearing about continuous monitoring since the early 2010s.
The Uncomfortable Truth
Frameworks rarely fail because they lack principles. They fail because:
- Adoption is inconsistent.
- Resourcing is inadequate.
- Bureaucracy slows everything down.
CSRMC doesn’t change that reality just by swapping out letters in the acronym soup.
So, Will CSRMC Stick?
Is CSRMC a step forward? Possibly. But let’s not mistake rebranding for revolution. Until the Department proves it can cut through inertia, resource the mission, and hold programs accountable, CSRMC risks being exactly what skeptics fear:
The same pig, different lipstick.
Where Cyber Defense Advisors Comes In
At Cyber Defense Advisors (CDA), we cut through the noise of shifting frameworks and acronyms to help organizations focus on what actually matters: execution.
Whether it’s navigating CSRMC, adapting to CMMC requirements, or building continuous monitoring strategies that actually work, our team ensures that compliance isn’t just paperwork — it’s real security.
Learn how CDA can help you prepare for CSRMC and beyond.
