FedRAMP and GenAI controls: what the vendors' trust pages say

A FedRAMP authorization covers named cloud services, not a company. A vendor can hold an authorization for its secure web gateway while a newer AI feature runs on infrastructure that is not yet in the boundary. For a US federal buyer, or a contractor that must follow the same rules, the question is not whether the vendor has FedRAMP, but whether the specific AI controls you plan to use are inside the authorized service.

Cisco states that Cisco Secure Access achieved FedRAMP authorization covering Secure Internet Access, VPN as a Service and ZTNA. AI Access is described elsewhere as a fully integrated feature set of Secure Access, but it is not named in that scope.

Source: Cisco Secure Access · Read 7 Oct 2026

Source: Cisco Secure Access: AI Access · Read 7 Oct 2026

Netskope states it achieved FedRAMP High Authorization for its GovCloud, and lists AICPA SOC 2, C5, CSA STAR Level II and IRAP. Which services are in scope is not stated on the page we read.

Source: Netskope: security, compliance and assurance · Read 7 Oct 2026

Palo Alto Networks' trust center certifications page lists SOC 2+, Germany C5, PCI DSS, IRAP, FedRAMP and StateRAMP, among others. Which products each covers is not stated in the text we read.

Source: Palo Alto Networks trust center: certifications · Read 7 Oct 2026

Cato Networks lists SOC 2 and SOC 3, PCI-DSS Level 1 Service Provider, ISO/IEC 27001, 27017, 27018, 27701 and 14001, UK Cyber Essentials, CSA STAR Self-Assessment, GDPR and Spain ENS High. FedRAMP is not listed.

Source: Cato Networks: security, compliance and privacy · Read 7 Oct 2026

Fortinet's trust page describes PSIRT disclosure aligned with ISO/IEC 30111 and 29147 and security aligned with the ISO/IEC 27000 series and NIST 800-53; specific FortiSASE certifications are not stated in the text we read.

Source: Fortinet: trust · Read 7 Oct 2026

Zscaler's compliance certifications are not stated on the pages we read; we did not reach its trust portal.

Choosing FedRAMP in the quiz triggers the check States FedRAMP. Because no vendor states that its AI controls are in scope, the most any vendor can reach is Partly stated, and the result shows a line naming the vendors that state FedRAMP and telling you to ask each one in writing. Choosing standard attestations instead triggers the check Lists security attestations, which Cato, Netskope and Palo Alto Networks meet on the pages we read.

Ask for the current authorization boundary and the list of services inside it, and check that the AI features you plan to use are named. Ask where prompts, verdicts and logs from those features are processed and stored. Ask whether the features run in the same environment as the authorized service or in a commercial region. And ask for the expected date if they are not in scope yet, in writing, because roadmaps are not authorizations.

The same logic applies to other schemes. A national certification or an ISO certificate names a scope. Whether the scheme is C5 in Germany, IRAP in Australia or ENS in Spain, the AI features are often the newest part of a product, and the newest part is the one most likely to sit outside an audit done a year earlier.

If FedRAMP is a hard requirement, start the conversation with the authorization boundary, not with the feature list. A product whose AI features are outside the boundary today may still be the right long-term choice, but you will need an interim plan, such as keeping federal workloads on controls that are already authorized and piloting the AI features on commercial traffic. Write down which data may pass through which service, and revisit it each time a vendor announces a change to its authorization. Treat a vendor's spoken answer as a lead and its written answer as the evidence.