DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Defense Contractors Are Silencing Their Cybersecurity Watchdogs

Posted on November 8, 2025November 8, 2025 by Dissent

Matthew LaGarde writes:

The US Department of Defense’s implementation of a new cybersecurity framework, the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification 2.0 or CMMC, will require more than 300,000 military contracting companies to improve their cybersecurity protections.

These safeguards are critically important, but it appears that more than half of military contractors are unprepared to meet these new requirements when phase 1 begins on Nov. 10.

Over the past several years, we have seen that cybersecurity whistleblowers at defense contractors are increasingly willing to come forward. Major companies, including Raytheon and Aerojet Rocketdyne, have already paid millions of dollars to the US Department of Justice to resolve cybersecurity fraud claims brought by whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act. In general, whistleblowers bring such claims because their employer ignores or retaliates against them when they raise concerns internally.

Read more at Bloomberg Law.

Category: Commentaries and AnalysesGovernment SectorSubcontractorU.S.

Post navigation

← Fourth Circuit Weighs in on Standing in Data Breach Class Actions
NCCIA arrests man over massive data breach involving millions of Pakistanis →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Village of Golf Manor considering paying ransom amid cyberattack (1)
  • Teen who allegedly stole millions of personal data records arrested in Spain
  • Akira ransomware: FBI tallies 250 million in payouts
  • IE: HSE confirms second ransomware attack but ‘no evidence’ patient data was stolen
  • Examining impact of federal relief program after major healthcare cyberattack — Research Brief
  • Justice Department Announces Actions to Combat Two Russian State-Sponsored Hacking Groups
  • Should entities be required to disclose the name of a vendor if the breach was at the vendor’s?
  • The Hidden Risks of Information Disclosure: A Costly Lesson from Cornwall
  • Defense Bill Would Require New Cyber Requirements for Some DoD Telecom Contracts
  • Tell the truth, or someone will tell it for you — Trumbull County, Ohio edition (1)

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • U.S. Plans to Scrutinize Foreign Tourists’ Social Media History
  • ANNOUNCEMENT: EFF Launches Age Verification Hub as Resource Against Misguided Laws
  • FTC Denies Petition from SpyFone App CEO to Vacate 2021 Order
  • Privacy concerns raised as Grok AI found to be a stalker’s best friend
  • PRIVACY—S.D. Cal.: Employee did not waive privacy right in personal email data on company provided laptop, (Dec 5, 2025)

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[at]databreaches.net
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: Dissent.73
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.