Contact

Cloud Security Authority serves as a national reference provider network for the cloud security services sector, covering provider categories, regulatory frameworks, and professional qualification standards across the United States. This page identifies the available channels for reaching the editorial and provider network operations office, the geographic scope of inquiries handled, and the information required to receive a meaningful response. Accurate and complete submissions receive priority routing over incomplete or ambiguous requests.

Additional contact options

The primary channel for all provider network-related inquiries is electronic. For organizations seeking to understand how the cloud security providers are structured, or for researchers referencing the , written correspondence through the contact form ensures a documented record of the exchange and the fastest routing to the correct review process.

Three distinct inquiry categories are handled through separate routing paths:

1. Provider Network provider inquiries — Submissions from cloud security service providers, managed security service providers (MSSPs), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors, and Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASBs) seeking provider review or classification verification.
2. Editorial and factual corrections — Requests to update, correct, or challenge published information, including regulatory citations, named agency references, or provider classification designations.
3. Research and media inquiries — Requests from journalists, policy researchers, academic institutions, and regulatory staff referencing provider network data for external publication or formal policy review.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines cloud service models and deployment structures under NIST SP 800-145, which forms part of the definitional framework used in this network. Inquiries referencing NIST classifications or related frameworks such as NIST SP 800-144 should identify the specific publication and section in dispute.

How to reach this office

The primary contact address for Cloud Security Authority is [email protected]. This address handles all three inquiry categories verified above and is monitored on standard business days.

Response times vary by inquiry type:

• Provider inquiries: Initial acknowledgment as processing allows; full review determination as processing allows.
• Factual corrections: Reviewed against cited public sources; resolution communicated as processing allows if a verifiable named source is provided at submission.
• Research and media: Routed based on scope; straightforward data requests receive a response as processing allows.

Correspondence not directed to the correct address or lacking sufficient detail — as described in the section below — will not receive expedited handling. Phone and real-time chat channels are not available for this provider network operation. All substantive communications are handled in writing to ensure accuracy and auditability of editorial decisions.

Service area covered

Cloud Security Authority operates as a national-scope provider network covering the United States. Provider providers, regulatory references, and framework citations apply to organizations operating under US federal and state-level cybersecurity and data protection requirements.

Federal regulatory frameworks represented in provider network classifications include those administered by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under applicable data security authorities, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights for cloud security practices intersecting with HIPAA-covered entities. The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) governs cloud service authorization for federal agency use and is a named classification criterion for providers verified in the federal-use category of this provider network.

Inquiries originating from outside the United States are accepted but should note that provider network scope does not extend to non-US regulatory bodies such as the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) or frameworks under the EU's NIS2 Directive. Cross-jurisdictional comparisons are outside the editorial scope of this reference.

State-specific frameworks — including California's CCPA enforcement posture under the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and New York's SHIELD Act — may be referenced in provider providers where directly relevant to a verified organization's documented compliance posture.

What to include in your message

Incomplete submissions delay processing and may be closed without response if the minimum required fields cannot be determined from context. All submissions should include the following:

1. Full legal name or organization name — Individual researchers should provide institutional affiliation where applicable.
2. Contact email address — Used solely for response correspondence; a valid address is required for any response to be issued.
3. Inquiry category — Identify whether the message concerns a provider, a factual correction, or a research/media matter.
4. Specific subject reference — Identify the provider name, page section, regulatory citation, or framework reference the inquiry concerns. Vague subject lines such as "question about your site" will not receive priority routing.
5. Supporting documentation — For factual correction requests, include the named public source (agency name, publication title, section number, or URL) that supports the proposed correction. Corrections unsupported by a named public source are not processed.
6. Provider details (for provider inquiries) — Include the organization's primary service category using standard classifications: MSSP, CSPM vendor, CASB, consultancy/assessor, or other with description. Reference to applicable certifications such as ISO/IEC 27017 (cloud-specific information security controls) or SOC 2 Type II attestation assists classification review.

Submissions that combine multiple unrelated inquiry types should be separated into distinct messages for independent routing. A single message containing both a provider request and a factual dispute will be split into 2 separate review queues, which may extend processing time for both items.