/

  / JumpCloud, Okta, or Entra for CMMC Level 2

JumpCloud, Okta, or Entra for CMMC Level 2

Only one of these three vendors sells a FedRAMP-authorized identity platform you can buy today as a defense contractor, one sells two of them, and one sells none.

Whether that matters for your CMMC Level 2 assessment depends entirely on whether your identity provider stores, processes, or transmits Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), or provides security protections for the systems that do.

That second condition is where most contractors get the analysis wrong. The IdP question is arguably the most argued-about scoping decision in CMMC 2.0 Level 2 preparation, because an identity provider almost never holds CUI directly, yet it controls access to everything that does. This article works through the regulatory requirement, the actual FedRAMP status of JumpCloud, Okta, and Microsoft Entra ID, and how to choose based on your CUI architecture rather than vendor marketing.

Understanding the CMMC Level 2 + FedRAMP Requirement

What CMMC Level 2 Requires for Cloud Services Handling CUI

CMMC 2.0 Level 2 requires contractors to implement the 110 security requirements of NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 and, for most contracts, pass a third-party assessment by a Certified Third-Party Assessor Organization (C3PAO). The 48 CFR acquisition rule took effect on November 10, 2025, which means CMMC clauses now appear in new Department of Defense (DoD) solicitations, with third-party assessment requirements expanding through the phased rollout in 2026 and beyond.

The cloud piece comes from the CMMC program rule at 32 CFR Part 170. If an Organization Seeking Certification uses a Cloud Service Provider (CSP) to process, store, or transmit CUI, that cloud service offering must be either FedRAMP Authorized at the Moderate baseline or higher or must meet security requirements equivalent to the FedRAMP Moderate baseline. Your C3PAO verifies this during the assessment. If your in-scope CSP fails the test, you fail the assessment.

The DFARS 252.204-7012 “FedRAMP Moderate or Equivalent” Clause

The requirement predates CMMC. DFARS 252.204-7012 has required since 2016 that any external CSP used to store, process, or transmit covered defense information meet security requirements “equivalent to those established by the Government for the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) Moderate baseline.”

For years, “equivalent” was undefined, and contractors interpreted it loosely. The DoD CIO closed that door with its December 2023 equivalency memo. To be FedRAMP Moderate Equivalent, a CSP must now demonstrate 100% compliance with the FedRAMP Moderate baseline, validated by a FedRAMP-recognized Third-Party Assessment Organization (3PAO), and hand over a full Body of Evidence to the contractor. No open Plans of Action and Milestones (POA&Ms) against the baseline are permitted. In some ways, it’s stricter than authorization itself, since authorized CSPs are allowed to carry POA&Ms.

Important: A vendor telling you they are “NIST 800-171 compliant” or “aligned to FedRAMP controls” does not satisfy DFARS 7012 or the CMMC rule. Either the offering appears on the FedRAMP Marketplace at Moderate or higher, or the vendor gives you a 3PAO-attested Body of Evidence demonstrating full equivalency. Anything else is a gap your C3PAO will find.

When an Identity Provider Falls Under This Requirement

An IdP is a cloud service. The question is whether it processes, stores, or transmits CUI. In a typical SSO flow, the IdP handles credentials, authentication tokens, session data, and directory attributes. None of that is CUI in most environments. So a literal reading says the FedRAMP mandate doesn’t apply.

The complication is the CMMC scoping guidance, which defines Security Protection Assets (SPAs): assets that provide security functions to the CMMC assessment scope even if they never touch CUI. An IdP enforcing multi-factor authentication (MFA), conditional access, and session policy over your CUI enclave is the textbook SPA. SPAs are in scope for your assessment and get evaluated against the relevant NIST SP 800-171 requirements they help satisfy.

Let Axipro help you build a business continuity plan that's practical, compliant, and audit-ready.

Schedule Your Free Assessment Today

Does Your Identity Provider Actually Need to Be FedRAMP Authorized?

When the IdP Processes, Stores, or Transmits CUI

Some architectures do push CUI through the identity layer. If usernames or directory attributes contain CUI (think program names or export-controlled project identifiers), if your IdP proxies application traffic through a gateway that carries CUI payloads, or if CUI-bearing documents get attached to identity workflows, the IdP is now a CSP handling CUI. FedRAMP Moderate or equivalent becomes non-negotiable.

When the IdP Provides Security Protections for CUI (SPA Role)

This is the common case, and it’s genuinely gray. The FedRAMP requirement in the rule text attaches to CSPs that process, store, or transmit CUI. A pure-play authentication service that does neither is an SPA, not a CUI-handling CSP. Under the final CMMC rule, External Service Providers (ESPs) that handle only Security Protection Data, such as configuration data, logs, and credentials, do not themselves require FedRAMP authorization or a separate CMMC certification. Their services get assessed as part of your assessment.

In practice, C3PAOs are not uniform on this. Some accept a well-documented System Security Plan (SSP) showing the IdP never touches CUI. Others take a conservative view that authentication data for CUI systems is sensitive enough that they want FedRAMP-grade assurance behind it, and they will probe hard. DIBCAC’s historical position, given publicly by officials as far back as 2020, is that clouds with management access to CUI systems don’t need FedRAMP unless CUI actually moves into them. That position helps, but you carry the burden of proving CUI never transits the service.

Cases Where a Commercial IdP May Be Acceptable

A commercial, non-FedRAMP IdP can survive a CMMC Level 2 assessment when all three of the following are true: CUI demonstrably never touches the IdP, the IdP is documented as an SPA with the specific 800-171 requirements it supports, and the data flows in your SSP prove the boundary. This is exactly how many contractors run enclave strategies, keeping a commercial identity stack for the corporate network while the CUI enclave uses its own FedRAMP-authorized identity.

The “External Service Provider” (ESP) Classification Under CMMC

The final rule distinguishes CSPs from other ESPs, like managed service providers. If your MSP administers your environment but the cloud tenancy is yours, the MSP is not a CSP and the FedRAMP requirement doesn’t attach to them, though their people and tools enter your assessment scope. If the provider hosts the service itself and CUI flows into it, they’re a CSP and the FedRAMP test applies. Where your IdP vendor sits in that taxonomy should be written into your SSP before your C3PAO asks.

 

Pro Tip: Write a One-page Data Flow Narrative

Write a one-page data flow narrative for your identity layer: what the IdP stores (identifiers, hashes, tokens, device posture), what it never stores, and how CUI systems consume authentication. Assessors respond far better to a clear negative claim with evidence than to a shrug. This single artifact resolves most IdP scoping debates before they start.

JumpCloud for CMMC Level 2

JumpCloud’s Current FedRAMP Status

JumpCloud is not FedRAMP authorized at any baseline, does not appear on the FedRAMP Marketplace, and has not published a 3PAO-attested FedRAMP Moderate equivalency Body of Evidence. The JumpCloud Directory Platform carries SOC 2 Type 2 attestation and ISO 27001 certification, which are credible commercial trust signals and irrelevant to the DFARS 7012 test.

JumpCloud Government vs. Commercial Offering

There is no JumpCloud government cloud. Unlike Okta and Microsoft, JumpCloud sells a single multi-tenant commercial platform. Its own CMMC positioning is about helping you satisfy control families like Access Control (AC), Identification and Authentication (IA), and Audit and Accountability (AU), not about the platform meeting CSP requirements for CUI.

Gaps to Address When Using JumpCloud for CUI Environments

If CUI touches JumpCloud, you have a finding you cannot remediate with configuration. Beyond the missing authorization, contractors should press JumpCloud on FIPS 140-2/140-3 validated cryptography for data in transit and at rest, US data residency guarantees, and personnel access controls, because your C3PAO will ask even in the SPA scenario.

Best-Fit Scenarios for JumpCloud

JumpCloud makes sense for small and mid-sized contractors running an enclave strategy: JumpCloud handles identity and device management for the general corporate environment, while the CUI enclave (commonly Microsoft GCC High or a managed enclave product) uses its own FedRAMP-authorized identity. It’s a cost-effective way to get MFA, SSO, and cross-OS device management for the 90% of your company that never sees CUI. It is not a candidate for the CUI path itself.

Okta for CMMC Level 2

Okta IDaaS Government High Cloud (GHC) FedRAMP High Authorization

Okta for Government High, listed on the FedRAMP Marketplace as Okta IDaaS Government High Cloud, achieved FedRAMP High authorization in March 2023. It runs on AWS GovCloud and covers 420+ NIST SP 800-53 controls at the High baseline, with support for phishing-resistant MFA including PIV, FIDO2/WebAuthn, and Okta FastPass. Okta has since extended the High authorization to Okta Identity Governance and Okta Workflows, which matters if you want lifecycle automation inside the authorization boundary rather than bolted on outside it.

Okta IDaaS Regulated Cloud (FedRAMP Moderate)

Okta’s Moderate-baseline offering (Okta for Government Moderate, listed as Okta IDaaS Regulated Cloud) has held FedRAMP Moderate authorization since 2017 and has accumulated well over 250 agency authorizations, making it one of the most reused identity packages on the Marketplace. For CMMC Level 2, Moderate is the floor the rule requires, so this tier is sufficient for most CUI Basic scenarios. Contractors handling CUI specified categories or wanting headroom often go straight to the High cell.

Okta Commercial vs. Okta for Government: Which You Need

Commercial Okta tenants are not covered by either authorization. The authorization attaches to specific cells and environments, not to the Okta brand. If your subscription lives in a commercial cell, you inherit nothing. Migrating between commercial and government cells is a real project involving re-federation of every application, MFA re-enrollment, and workflow rebuilds, so contractors should pick the right cell before rollout, not after.

Licensing and Cost Considerations

Expect the government cells to price meaningfully above the commercial list, with procurement through government-oriented contract vehicles or resellers. Okta prices per user per product (SSO, MFA, Lifecycle Management, Identity Governance, each stack), so a full CMMC-supporting deployment for a 200-person contractor routinely lands in the tens of thousands of dollars annually before professional services. Against that, Okta is the strongest option when your CUI systems are heterogeneous, spanning AWS GovCloud workloads, on-prem applications, and non-Microsoft SaaS.

Microsoft Entra ID for CMMC Level 2

Entra ID in Microsoft 365 GCC High (FedRAMP High Equivalent)

For Defense Industrial Base (DIB) contractors, the default answer is Entra ID inside Microsoft 365 GCC High. The GCC High directory service is provided by Azure Government, assessed at FedRAMP High, operated by screened US persons within US data residency, and it demonstrates DoD SRG IL4/IL5 equivalency. Critically, GCC High is the Microsoft environment where the DFARS 7012 paragraph (c) through (g) incident reporting and forensics flow-down is contractually supported. Microsoft also completed a Joint Surveillance Voluntary Assessment (JSVA) of its own federal environment with a perfect 110 score in SPRS terms, which is the strongest shared-responsibility evidence any of the three vendors can hand you.

Entra ID in GCC vs. Commercial M365

Here’s a nuance most comparison articles miss: Azure Commercial, including commercial Entra ID, actually holds a FedRAMP High provisional authorization. On paper, that reads like a pass. The problem is everything around it. Commercial M365 doesn’t support the DFARS 7012 (c)-(g) flow-down, doesn’t guarantee US-person administration, and can’t hold export-controlled CUI categories like ITAR data. GCC (standard) sits in between: fine for Federal Contract Information and workable for some CUI Basic scenarios, but Microsoft itself steers CMMC Level 2 contractors with CUI toward GCC High. So the Entra question is less “is it FedRAMP” and more “which cloud does your whole Microsoft stack live in,” because Entra follows the tenant.

Insider Note: The FedRAMP status of the identity service is rarely what disqualifies a Microsoft architecture. What disqualifies it is CUI sitting in Exchange, SharePoint, and Teams in a commercial tenant. The IdP inherits the decision you make about the productivity stack. If email and files must be in GCC High, your Entra ID is in GCC High by definition, and the IdP debate resolves itself.

Entra ID P1/P2 Feature Availability Across Tenants

Conditional Access, the workhorse for CMMC access control requirements, needs Entra ID P1. Privileged Identity Management and risk-based policies (your PAM-adjacent and 3.1.x/3.5.x helpers) need P2. Both are available in GCC High, usually bundled through M365 G3/G5 licensing, though some features ship to government clouds months behind commercial. GCC High licensing typically runs a 25-50% premium over commercial equivalents and requires validation of your eligibility before Microsoft will even provision the tenant.

Integration with Azure Government

If your engineering workloads run in Azure Government, Entra ID in GCC High is the native control plane: same identity backbone, Conditional Access spanning M365 and Azure workloads, and a single audit trail feeding Sentinel. That integration story is the main reason Entra wins by default in Microsoft-centric DIB environments.

Choosing the Right IdP Based on Your CUI Architecture

Ultimately, choosing the right IdP based on your CUI architecture comes down to where your data lives and moves. The paths below map the three most common scenarios.

If CUI Never Touches the IdP Authentication Flow

Document the IdP as a Security Protection Asset, keep the data-flow evidence tight, and any of the three can technically work, including JumpCloud. Your risk here is assessor variance, not the rule itself. Budget-conscious contractors with a hard enclave boundary take this path deliberately.

If the IdP Enforces Access Controls Over CUI Systems

Once the IdP is the enforcement point for your CUI systems’ access control and MFA requirements, most contractors and a growing share of C3PAOs treat FedRAMP-grade identity as the safe harbor. That means Okta’s government cells or Entra ID in GCC/GCC High. The cost delta is smaller than the cost of a contested assessment finding.

Hybrid Scenarios and Enclave Strategies

The pattern we see most at Axipro among mid-sized DIB contractors: GCC High (with Entra ID) as the CUI enclave, JumpCloud or commercial Okta running the rest of the company, and no federation between the two identity planes. Two directories are annoying. It’s also dramatically cheaper than moving 400 people into GCC High to protect the 40 who touch CUI, and it shrinks your assessment scope in the bargain.

Decision Framework: Which IdP Should You Choose?

Ask four questions in order.

  • One: Does CUI transit the identity layer in any flow? If yes, only FedRAMP Moderate-or-higher offerings qualify, which eliminates JumpCloud.
  • Two: Is your CUI stack Microsoft-centric? If yes, Entra ID in the matching tenant wins on integration and total cost, since you’re already paying for it.
  • Three: Is your CUI estate heterogeneous across clouds and on-prem? Okta’s government cells earn their premium there.
  • Four: Are you running an enclave to shrink scope? Then split the decision: FedRAMP-authorized identity inside the enclave, and the best value platform (often JumpCloud) outside it.

The bottom line across all of this: the rule cares about where CUI lives and moves, not about logos. JumpCloud is a capable platform with no lane into the CUI path. Okta gives you purpose-built FedRAMP Moderate and High identity clouds at a price. Entra ID rides whichever Microsoft tenant your data already demands. Architecture first, vendor second.

Worth Knowing: Phase 2 of the CMMC

With Phase 2 of the CMMC rollout bringing C3PAO assessments to more Level 2 contracts through 2026, assessment calendars at reputable C3PAOs are filling up months out. If your IdP decision forces a migration, the migration timeline, not the license negotiation, is usually what threatens your assessment date. Cell-to-cell Okta migrations and commercial-to-GCC High moves both routinely run one to two quarters.

Final Recommendation Based on Contractor Profile

For a Microsoft-centric DIB contractor handling CUI in email and files, choose Entra ID in GCC High. You need the tenant anyway; the identity comes with it, and the shared-responsibility evidence trail is the most mature in the market.

For a contractor with CUI spread across AWS GovCloud, on-prem systems, and non-Microsoft SaaS, choose Okta IDaaS Regulated Cloud (or Government High Cloud for CUI Specified and ITAR contexts) and budget for the government-cell premium.

For a small contractor pursuing an enclave strategy, run JumpCloud as the corporate identity and device platform outside the boundary and let the enclave’s native FedRAMP-authorized identity handle CUI access.

And whichever way you go, settle the IdP scoping question in your SSP before your C3PAO settles it for you.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Microsoft Entra ID Commercial meet CMMC Level 2 requirements?

Partially, and that’s the trap. Commercial Azure (including Entra ID) holds a FedRAMP High provisional authorization, but commercial M365 doesn’t support the DFARS 252.204-7012 (c)-(g) flow-down and can’t hold export-controlled CUI. If your CUI lives in Microsoft services, Microsoft’s own guidance points Level 2 contractors to GCC High, and your Entra tenant follows that decision.

No. JumpCloud holds SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 for its directory platform but has no FedRAMP authorization at any baseline and no published Moderate-equivalency Body of Evidence. It cannot be used to process, store, or transmit CUI under DFARS 7012 or the CMMC rule.

Yes, in an enclave architecture where commercial Okta serves only the non-CUI environment and never federates into the enclave. Document it as out of scope or as a Security Protection Asset for the corporate side, and keep the identity planes separated in your SSP and network diagrams.

FedRAMP Moderate means the offering holds an actual authorization and appears on the FedRAMP Marketplace. Equivalent, per the DoD’s December 2023 memo, means the CSP proves 100% compliance with the Moderate baseline through a 3PAO assessment and supplies the contractor a Body of Evidence, with no open POA&Ms. Equivalency has no marketplace listing and no government sponsor; you hold the evidence and the risk.

Under a strict reading of the rule, no: the FedRAMP requirement attaches to CSPs that process, store, or transmit CUI, and an authentication-only IdP is a Security Protection Asset assessed within your scope instead. In practice, be ready to prove the negative with data-flow documentation, and expect some C3PAOs to push toward FedRAMP-grade identity anyway when the IdP gates CUI systems.

Three ways. They check scoping: is the IdP a CUI asset, an SPA, or out of scope, and does the evidence support that classification. They check the CSP test where it applies: marketplace listing or Body of Evidence. And they assess the 800-171 requirements the IdP helps satisfy, such as MFA (3.5.3), session controls, and account management, against your actual tenant configuration, not the vendor’s data sheet.

You have a compliance gap against DFARS 7012 the moment CUI keeps flowing through a no-longer-qualified service. Practically, you’d document the deviation, open a POA&M, notify affected primes where required, and execute a migration. This is a reason to favor offerings with long authorization track records and multiple agency reuses, and to write exit rights into the vendor contract.

Axipro Author

Picture of Pedro Dias

Pedro Dias

Pedro has been writing online for over 10 years. With experience in all things programming, cyber security, and compliance, he is our editor-in-chief at Axipro.

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

Compliance software collects the evidence. A consultant builds the system that evidence is meant to prove. That’s the real difference in the ISO 27001 consultant vs software decision, and most teams only figure it out after they’ve bought one and realized they still need the other. Below, we compare what each route covers, where it breaks down, and what it costs you in time, money, and your team’s hours. Short version: software on its own works for a small group of companies. For most SaaS and tech scale-ups trying to get an enterprise deal over the line, consultant-led implementation on a compliance platform is the faster and safer path to a certificate. Quick Answer: Consultant, Software, or Both? Software-only works if you already have an in-house security lead who’s taken a company through ISO/IEC 27001 before and has the time to own the project. Consultant-only still makes sense if you run mostly on-premise or legacy systems that platforms barely integrate with. For everyone else, which means most cloud-native companies under a few hundred people, a hybrid works best: a platform to handle evidence and monitoring, and a consultant to build the management system and stand behind it in front of an auditor. Here’s why. What an ISO 27001 Consultant Handles ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is a management system standard. Clauses 4 to 10 cover how you run information security, and Annex A lists 93 controls you pick from based on risk. Almost none of it is box-ticking. Most of it comes down to judgment calls about your business, and that’s what you’re paying a consultant for. Scoping, Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Scope is the first decision you make, and the most expensive one to get wrong. Go too wide and you’ll spend months on controls for systems no customer asks about. Go too narrow and the certificate won’t get through the procurement review it was supposed to pass. A consultant scopes around the deals you’re trying to close, runs a gap analysis, and builds a risk assessment based on your real assets and threats. That’s the document auditors dig into hardest. ISMS Documentation and Policy Writing The standard asks for a specific set of documents: the ISMS scope, information security policy, risk assessment and treatment methodology, Statement of Applicability, risk treatment plan, and evidence of competence, monitoring, internal audit, and management review. A consultant writes these around how your company works day to day, instead of how a template imagines it works. Auditors check whether you follow your own procedures, so a mismatch shows up fast. Internal Audit and Certification Audit Support You need an internal audit before certification, and Clause 9.2 says the auditor has to be objective and impartial. In a small company, the people who built the ISMS can’t credibly audit it, so most teams outsource it through ISO 27001 internal audit services. A good consultant also gets your team ready for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits, joins the conversations that matter, and handles corrective actions if the auditor raises nonconformities.  What ISO 27001 Compliance Software Handles Compliance automation platforms, often called GRC platforms, have changed how cloud-native companies get certified. They’re very good at the repetitive, evidence-heavy side of the work. Automated Evidence Collection and Continuous Control Monitoring The platform plugs into your cloud provider, identity provider, code repos, HR system, and device management tools, then pulls evidence on its own. It’ll flag an unencrypted storage bucket, an ex-employee who still has access, or a laptop without disk encryption. For technical controls, that saves weeks of screenshots and spreadsheet tracking. Policy Templates and Annex A Control Mapping Most platforms come with a policy library and map each control to the ISO 27001 clauses and Annex A. You get a starting point and a clear view of which controls have evidence and which don’t. Auditor Access and Ongoing Compliance Tracking Auditors can log in and review evidence themselves, which cuts down fieldwork. After you’re certified, dashboards show when controls slip between surveillance audits, so you aren’t rebuilding evidence from scratch every year. Where Each Approach Falls Short Neither route covers everything by itself. The good news is that the ways each one fails are predictable, so you can plan around them. Limits of Compliance Automation Platforms A platform can tell you a control is failing. It can’t decide your scope, run your risk assessment, write a policy that matches your operations, convince your CTO to change the offboarding process, or explain to an auditor why you excluded a control from your Statement of Applicability. Templates can also make you feel further along than you are. A dashboard at 90% can hide an ISMS that won’t survive Stage 1, because the missing 10% is the management system itself. Insider Note: The Stage 1 problem we see most on software-only projects is a risk assessment copied straight from the platform’s default risk library. The risks are generic, the scores are almost identical, and nothing ties back to the company’s own assets. Auditors notice within minutes, and it weakens the Statement of Applicability that’s built on it. The other problem is ownership. Software assumes someone inside the company will drive the project. At most startups that’s a CTO or ops lead who already has a full-time job, and the subscription renews whether the work gets done or not. Limits of a Consultant-Only Approach A consultant working without automation spends billable days on things a platform does for free, like chasing screenshots, updating evidence trackers, and collecting the same proof again before every surveillance audit. You pay more and wait longer. You also end up with a program that’s only accurate on the day it’s handed over. Once the engagement ends, the evidence goes stale and year-two surveillance turns into a scramble. ISO 27001 Consultant vs Software: Side-by-Side Comparison Factor Consultant only Software only Hybrid (consultant + platform) Time to audit readiness 3 to 6+ months Highly variable; depends on internal expertise As little as 6 weeks for well-scoped

Uzbekistan regulates artificial intelligence through two documents. The first is Law ZRU-1115, signed on 21 January 2026. It amends existing legislation to define AI, stops anyone from basing decisions about people’s rights on AI output alone, and fines companies that process personal data unlawfully with AI. The second is the set of Ethical Rules approved by Order No. 3787, in force since 17 June 2026, which spell out what developers, implementers, and users actually have to do. Uzbekistan hasn’t passed a standalone AI act, and its rules don’t sort systems into risk tiers or require conformity assessments. The framework is short and blunt, and it’s already enforceable. Below we walk through what each document requires, who it applies to, how it stacks up against the EU AI Act, and what a company using AI in Uzbekistan should do next. Uzbekistan AI Regulation at a Glance (TL;DR) Instrument Date What it does Who it binds Law ZRU-1115 Signed 21 January 2026 Defines AI in law, sets general rules for AI-built information resources and systems, bans legally significant decisions based only on AI, adds fines for unlawful AI processing of personal data State bodies, organizations, website owners, anyone processing personal data with AI Order No. 3787 (Ethical Rules) Registered 14 March 2026, in force 17 June 2026 Sets eight mandatory ethical principles and lists rights and obligations for developers, implementers, and users Individuals and companies developing, implementing, or using AI in Uzbekistan Law No. 1125 (Personal Data amendments) Adopted 26 March 2026 Limits data localization to biometric, genetic, and local telecom user data, and allows cross-border transfers under conditions Personal data operators, including AI providers AI Strategy until 2030 (RP-358) 14 October 2024 Sets national targets for AI adoption, infrastructure, and skills Government bodies What Is Law ZRU-1115? The law’s official title is a mouthful: “On making additions and changes to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the regulation of relations arising from the use of artificial intelligence.” Put simply, it’s an amending law. Instead of creating a new AI code, it writes AI into laws that were already on the books. When It Was Signed and When It Took Effect The Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis adopted the bill on 12 August 2025, and the Senate approved it on 1 November 2025. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed it on 21 January 2026. You can read the official text in Lex.uz, Uzbekistan’s national legislation database. The law set out the principles and the penalties. The day-to-day detail arrived later with the Ethical Rules, which came into force on 17 June 2026. For compliance planning, treat mid-June 2026 as the point when the whole framework started applying. Why Uzbekistan Amended Existing Laws Instead of Passing a Standalone AI Act Uzbekistan wants more AI, not less. Its national strategy sets numeric targets for adoption, investment, and local computing capacity, and a heavy EU-style act would have worked against them. So lawmakers kept it light. They defined AI, drew two hard lines (human control over decisions that affect people’s rights, and protection of personal data), and left the Ministry of Digital Technologies to fill in the rest through secondary rules. Businesses get less legal certainty, and the government gets to move faster. Which Laws ZRU-1115 Changes For businesses, two amendments matter most. The Law “On Informatization” (ZRU-560-II, 2003) now contains a legal definition of AI, a new article on using AI in information resources and systems, duties for website owners, and updated powers for the ministry in charge. The Code on Administrative Liability now includes an offense for processing and spreading personal data unlawfully using AI. The Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence in Uzbekistan Under the amended Law “On Informatization,” AI is a set of technological solutions that imitate human cognitive functions, including learning on their own and solving problems, and that produce results on specific tasks comparable to what a person could do. That’s deliberately broad. It covers generative AI, machine learning classifiers, recommendation engines, and most agentic systems. The Ethical Rules add a narrower term, the AI system: software built on AI that can find, collect, store, analyze, process, evaluate, and use data, and make decisions on its own based on that data. If your product makes a decision from data, or shapes one, assume it counts. Key Rules Introduced by Law ZRU-1115 General Principles for Using AI in Information Systems and Resources The new article in the Law “On Informatization” starts from harm. Information resources created with AI, and information systems running on AI, must not harm people’s life, health, freedom, honor, or dignity, or violate their other inalienable rights. The standard is short and open-ended. It gives regulators something to enforce against without saying in advance what counts as harm. Principle-based rules like this deserve to be taken seriously precisely because the edges are undefined. Human Oversight: No Decisions on Rights and Freedoms Based Solely on AI Most coverage leads with this provision, and it’s easy to see why. When someone makes a legally significant decision that affects human rights and freedoms, they can’t rely only on conclusions produced by AI systems or AI-built information resources. AI can feed into the decision, but a person has to make it. That applies to loan denials, benefit eligibility, hiring rejections, licensing outcomes, and disciplinary action. In each case, someone needs to look at the AI output and own the final call. Insider Note: In AI governance engagements, teams rarely struggle to show that a review step exists. What they struggle to show is that the reviewer could disagree, and sometimes did. If a human clicks “approve” on every AI recommendation and nobody ever records an override, auditors will see automation with a signature on top. Build the override path and log when people use it, starting on day one. Powers of the Authorized State Body (Ministry of Digital Technologies) ZRU-1115 makes the Ministry of Digital Technologies the authorized state body for AI. Among its new jobs, it’s

You can get a SaaS company ready for a SOC 2 audit in six weeks, but you’ll feel every one of them. Most published timelines say three to six months. For a company with no project owner, no identity provider, and nothing written down, that’s about right. A cloud-native startup that already has the basics in place and can protect some time is a different story, and it can fit the work into six hard weeks. This plan walks through that route one week at a time. Each week has an owner, an hour estimate, and a clear test for when it’s finished. The free Google Sheet version turns the plan into a tracker you can hand out to owners and update in your weekly standup. Before you start, know what you’re signing up for. At the end of week 6 you’ll be audit-ready, which isn’t the same as holding a Type II report. Nobody can get you a Type II in six weeks. This is also the do-it-yourself route, and it takes a lot of hours. We’ll show you where those hours go and what the faster option looks like. Is Six Weeks Realistic for Your Company? Six weeks works when most of the plumbing already exists and your job is to formalize it, fill the gaps, and prove it all works. It falls apart when you’re building the foundations and documenting them at the same time. Go through this table honestly before you promise a customer a date. Six weeks is realistic if… Plan for 10 to 16 weeks if… Your product runs on a major cloud provider You host on-premise or across several data centers You already use an identity provider with SSO Every tool has its own login and password You have fewer than about 50 employees You have multiple offices, subsidiaries, or products in scope One named person owns the project with 10 to 15 hours a week Compliance is “everyone’s job,” so in practice nobody owns it An engineer can give you 15 to 20 hours in weeks 3 and 4 Engineering is fully committed to a launch You only need the Security criteria You need Availability, Confidentiality, or Privacy on day one Landing mostly in the right-hand column doesn’t mean you should throw the plan out. Give each week two weeks instead of one and follow the same order. What “SOC 2 Ready” Means at the End of Week 6 SOC 2 doesn’t give you a certificate. An independent CPA firm examines your controls against the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and writes a report, and which of the two report types you go for decides what you can show a buyer after week 6. A Type I report checks whether your controls are designed properly on a single date. Once you’re ready, a Type I audit can start almost right away. A Type II report checks whether those controls kept working over an observation period of at least three months, and usually six to twelve. Most enterprise procurement teams want Type II in the end. Being “ready” at the end of this plan means your in-scope controls are in place, you can pull evidence for any of them on request, and your auditor is booked. From there you either start a Type I audit or open your Type II observation window. Plenty of buyers will sign with a Type I report plus a letter from your auditor saying the Type II period is underway. Important: The Type II clock doesn’t start until your controls are running. If readiness slips by a week, your Type II report slips by a week too. Founders who tell a prospect “we’ll have SOC 2 in Q3” often forget this and end up renegotiating the deal. Before Week 1: Four Decisions to Make First Settle these before the clock starts. If you change any of them halfway through, you’ll redo work. Scope. Decide which systems, teams, and data the report covers. For most SaaS companies that’s the production environment, the code repository, the identity provider, customer data stores, and any support tools that touch customer data. Corporate systems that never see customer data can usually stay out. Trust Services Criteria. Security (also called the Common Criteria) is mandatory. Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, and Privacy are optional. Report type. Pick Type I if a deal is blocked right now and the buyer will accept it. If there’s no deadline, go straight to Type II. You’ll need it eventually, and skipping Type I saves you an audit fee. Owner and tooling. Name one person who’s accountable for the plan, and decide where your controls and evidence will live. The tooling choice gets its own section below. Pro Tip: Adding Criteria Only add optional criteria when a customer contract or security questionnaire asks for them. Each one brings more controls to set up and more evidence to collect, and you can widen the scope in next year’s audit. Spreadsheet or Compliance Software: Choosing Your Tracking Tool Every SOC 2 program needs a system of record, meaning one place where each control, its owner, its status, and its evidence live. You can run it yourself in a spreadsheet or a GRC platform, or have a consultant implement it for you. The right choice depends mostly on which report you’re after and how much of your team’s time you can spare. A spreadsheet is free and familiar. It also makes you understand your own environment before you automate any of it. For a Type I, or for a small team with a tight scope, a well-built spreadsheet can take you all the way to the audit. Axipro’s free GRC workbook for SOC 2 and ISO 27001 covers all 33 SOC 2 Common Criteria plus the optional criteria, with evidence, risk, policy, and gap trackers built in. It has no macros and opens straight in Google Sheets or Excel. A GRC platform connects to your cloud, identity provider, code repository, and HR system.