1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |The Department of Defense Updates Security Requirements for Cloud Services

The Department of Defense Updates Security Requirements for Cloud Services

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.01.22

The Department of Defense (DoD) recently published Version 1, Release 4 of its Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide (SRG).  The SRG outlines the administrative, technical, and physical security controls and requirements to be followed by contractors providing cloud services to the DoD pursuant to DFARS 252.239-7010, Cloud Computing Services. 

The first update in almost five years, Release 4:

  • Reduces the differences between FedRAMP and DoD requirements for cloud services and provides additional guidance with regard to reciprocity between the two authorization regimes;
  • Updates the requirements for cloud services handling personally identifiable and protected health information;
  • Introduces the possibility of higher authorization levels for cloud services offering the DoD physical, rather than logical, separation from other tenants;
  • Clarifies guidance with regard to cloud access points through which a cloud service connects to the DoD’s network; and
  • Makes a number of additional changes to modernize requirements, clarify ambiguities, and reduce redundancy.

The SRG instructs contractors currently providing cloud services to the DoD to transition to the requirements in Release 4 as soon as practical but not later than one year after the SRG’s publication.  Contractors interested in providing cloud services to the DoD should prepare for an assessment against the new requirements, as Release 4 became effective upon publication.

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....

View All Insights