AWS Outage and SEC Disruption: An Analysis of Concentrated Infrastructure Risk

Executive Summary

Purpose

This report analyzes two concurrent events from October 20, 2025. The first was a major outage at Amazon Web Services (AWS). The second was a disruption of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) EDGAR system. The report’s main goal is to determine the likelihood of a causal link between these incidents. It also assesses the broader systemic risks from the public sector’s growing reliance on a concentrated commercial cloud infrastructure.

Methodology

The analysis uses the Skeptical Researcher’s Framework. This framework requires a systematic investigation into claims, evidence, and hidden risks. The report examines the technical details of the AWS failure. It also reviews the SEC’s contractual dependencies on AWS. Finally, it considers critical contributing factors, like the operational limits from an ongoing U.S. government shutdown.

Key Findings

The evidence strongly suggests a direct causal link. The report concludes that the SEC’s EDGAR disruption was a direct consequence of the AWS outage. This incident highlights a significant systemic vulnerability. Critical public infrastructure is now concentrated in the hands of a few commercial providers.

This concentration creates a “democratic deficit.” Essential government functions become subject to the operational stability and failures of private companies. The report also finds that the SEC’s own “ad hoc” cloud strategy made it highly vulnerable. This flawed strategy, previously documented by its Office of Inspector General, left the agency exposed to this specific type of single-region infrastructure failure.

Recommendations

The report proposes a three-pronged strategy to mitigate these risks.

Government Oversight: First, it calls for enhanced government oversight. Legislation should mandate comprehensive dependency mapping for all federal agencies. It should also establish a framework for the direct regulation of critical technology providers.
Agency Strategy: Second, it urges a strategic shift within public agencies. They must prioritize architectural resilience. This includes mandating multi-region or multi-cloud designs for critical systems.
Exit Planning: Finally, all public and private entities should develop and test comprehensive exit strategies. This will reduce vendor lock-in and ensure operational continuity during major disruptions.

Introduction

On October 20, 2025, a significant portion of the global internet experienced a severe disruption. The failure originated within Amazon Web Services (AWS), the world’s largest cloud provider.¹ The outage lasted approximately 15 hours. It crippled thousands of businesses, financial services, and communication platforms worldwide.¹

At the same time, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reported “intermittent issues.” The problems affected its critical Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system. This disruption made key corporate financial data sporadically unavailable.²

This report applies the Skeptical Researcher’s Framework to dissect these concurrent events.

The Skeptical Researcher’s Framework is a methodology for critical analysis. It compels an investigation that moves beyond surface-level correlation. The framework requires scrutiny of underlying technical claims, contractual obligations, financial incentives, and systemic vulnerabilities.

The analysis moves beyond initial reporting. It critically examines the claims and analyzes the technical and contractual evidence. It also evaluates external risk factors, such as an ongoing U.S. government shutdown that severely limited the SEC’s operational capacity.

The central objective is to determine the nature of this correlation. Was it direct causation, mere coincidence, or a complex interplay of vulnerabilities? The report also assesses the broader implications of the public sector’s growing dependency on a concentrated commercial cloud infrastructure.

This analysis is intended for policymakers, regulators, and technology leaders. It highlights the urgent policy questions raised by the incident. The report scrutinizes the anatomy of the AWS failure and the ambiguity surrounding the SEC’s disruption. It also examines the agency’s documented digital dependency and the systemic risks of the modern cloud ecosystem. This analysis seeks to provide a definitive account of the incident and its cautionary lessons. These lessons are vital for technology policy, regulatory oversight, and national infrastructure resilience.

To understand this connection, we must first dissect the anatomy of the AWS failure itself.

Section 1: Anatomy of a Hyperscale Failure: The AWS US-EAST-1 Outage

To evaluate the potential link between the AWS and SEC disruptions, we must first establish a technical baseline of the AWS outage. A precise understanding of the failure’s origin, mechanism, and scope is critical. This helps assess whether it could plausibly have caused the specific problems the SEC reported. The event was not a monolithic collapse. It was a precise technical failure whose consequences cascaded through a complex, interconnected global system.

1.1 The Technical Root Cause: A DNS Resolution Failure

The outage originated in AWS’s Northern Virginia (US-EAST-1) region. This area is of immense strategic importance to the global internet. It is AWS’s oldest and largest data center hub and serves as a critical backbone for a vast number of services.⁴ The incident began in the early hours of October 20, 2025. AWS first acknowledged it was investigating “increased error rates and latencies” at approximately 12:11 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT).⁵

Within hours, AWS engineers isolated the root cause. It was a Domain Name System (DNS) resolution issue. Specifically, the failure affected the regional endpoint for Amazon DynamoDB, a core database service.⁶ Countless applications use DynamoDB to store and retrieve critical information.

DNS functions as the internet’s directory. It translates human-readable domain names (like dynamodb.us-east-1.amazonaws.com) into the numeric IP addresses that computers use.⁷ When this system failed, applications could not locate the DynamoDB servers they depended on. This led to a complete breakdown in their functionality.⁷

Technical analyses later identified the trigger for this catastrophic failure. An error occurred during a routine software update to a core database Application Programming Interface (API).⁸ This serves as a stark reminder of the inherent risks in maintaining complex, large-scale systems. The incident powerfully reaffirmed a long-standing engineering adage: “It’s always DNS”.⁹ The world’s most advanced cloud provider was effectively paralyzed for hours. The cause was not a sophisticated cyberattack or a massive hardware collapse. It was a failure in one of the internet’s most basic and essential directory services.

1.2 The Cascade Effect: From Control Plane to Global Disruption

The failure was not contained to DynamoDB. Its impact radiated outward because of the unique architectural position of the US-EAST-1 region. This region hosts the primary “control plane” for many global AWS services. This means it handles essential backend functions like authentication, configuration, and routing that other services and regions rely upon.¹⁰ When the DynamoDB endpoint failed, it impaired this central control plane. This triggered a cascade of failures across other foundational services.

Visualizing the Cascade Failure:

Initial Failure: DNS Resolution for DynamoDB in US-EAST-1 → Impairs Core Control Plane → Cascading Failures in Dependent Services (EC2, Lambda, IAM) → Global Disruption (Even for multi-region setups)

AWS’s own status updates chronicled this domino effect. The initial DynamoDB issue led to significant API errors and connectivity problems with Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2).¹¹ This prevented customers from launching new server instances. This, in turn, affected services like AWS Lambda and Amazon Redshift that depend on EC2 to function.¹¹

Crucially, the outage demonstrated a deeply embedded architectural vulnerability: hidden dependencies on the US-EAST-1 control plane. Even customers who had architected their applications for resilience across multiple geographic regions were affected. If their multi-region setup still relied on US-EAST-1 for a core function like authentication, their entire operation could be compromised.¹² This architectural characteristic explains the global scope of the disruption. It revealed that the promise of regional isolation, a key tenet of cloud resilience, was compromised by centralized dependencies.

1.3 Global Impact Assessment

The outage persisted for approximately 15 hours. AWS announced a full restoration of services late in the afternoon on October 20.¹ During this period, the impact was global and severe. The outage-tracking website Downdetector recorded over 6.5 million user reports of service disruptions worldwide. The geographic distribution of these reports underscores the scale of the event. Over 1 million reports came from the United States, more than 400,000 from the United Kingdom, and hundreds of thousands more from Australia, Germany, and Japan.¹³

The disruption affected a wide array of industries that depend on AWS for daily operations:

Financial Services: Payment platforms like Venmo and cryptocurrency exchanges such as Coinbase and Robinhood reported major problems. In the UK, major banks including Lloyds and Halifax were impacted.¹⁴
Communication and Workplace Collaboration: Secure messaging app Signal, social media giant Snapchat, and essential workplace tools like Zoom and Slack became inaccessible for millions.¹⁵
Transportation and Logistics: Major U.S. carriers including Delta Air Lines and United Airlines experienced disruptions to their online services.¹⁶
Government Services: The incident’s reach extended into the public sector. The UK’s tax authority, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), and the National Rail website both experienced performance issues.¹⁷
Amazon’s Own Ecosystem: In an ironic turn, the outage crippled many of Amazon’s own products. The company’s e-commerce website displayed error messages. Its popular Alexa voice assistant and Ring smart home devices were rendered unusable.¹⁸

The following table provides a consolidated timeline of the AWS and SEC events. It establishes a precise chronology of the concurrent disruptions.

Table 1: Consolidated Timeline of AWS Outage and SEC Disruption (October 20, 2025)

Timestamp (Approximate EDT)	Event Description	Source(s)
3:11 a.m.	AWS: Begins investigating “increased error rates and latencies for multiple AWS services in the US-EAST-1 Region.”	[⁵]
3:26 a.m.	AWS: Identifies DNS resolution issues for the regional DynamoDB service endpoints as the trigger of the event.	[¹¹]
5:01 a.m.	AWS: Engineers identify DNS resolution of the DynamoDB API endpoint as the likely root cause of the broader issue.	[¹⁹]
5:27 a.m.	AWS: Reports “significant signs of recovery” and states that most requests should be succeeding, though a backlog remains.	[²⁰]
~4:05 p.m.	SEC: In a notice on its website, the agency acknowledges that “Intermittent issues are preventing the display of disseminated filings on SEC.gov.”	[²]
6:53 p.m.	AWS: Posts a final update stating that error rates and latencies for all services in US-EAST-1 have returned to normal levels, concluding the event.	[²¹]
~7:36 p.m.	SEC: The initial notice is replaced with a banner reading: “The technical issue has been resolved. EDGAR is operating normally.”	[²]

The global scope and technical nature of this outage provide the necessary context for evaluating the concurrent disruption at the SEC.

Section 2: The SEC EDGAR Disruption: Coincidence or Consequence?

With a clear understanding of the AWS outage, the analysis now turns to the concurrent disruption at the SEC. As the digital economy faltered, the SEC’s own critical infrastructure showed signs of strain. This raised immediate questions about the nature of the correlation. This section applies a skeptical framework to the sparse public information. It systematically evaluates all plausible explanations for the EDGAR system’s failure.

2.1 Characterizing the EDGAR “Intermittent Issues”

On the same day as the AWS outage, the SEC’s EDGAR database experienced “intermittent issues”.² These issues made the vast repository of corporate financial information “sporadically available” to the public.²

The SEC communicated the problem via a notice on its EDGAR News & Announcements webpage. The notice stated: “Intermittent issues are preventing the display of disseminated filings on SEC.gov. As a result, submissions that have been accepted may not be reflected on SEC.gov”.²

This message indicates a specific failure mode. The backend system was likely still accepting filings from companies. However, the public-facing dissemination layer was failing. This created a critical information blackout for investors, analysts, and the media.

The SEC reported the issue as resolved by 7:36 p.m. Eastern Time. The initial notice was replaced with a new banner: “The technical issue has been resolved. EDGAR is operating normally”.²

Crucially, the SEC “did not cite a reason for the problem”.³ News reports covering the dual incidents were careful to note that “there are no reports that the two incidents are related”.³ This official ambiguity is the central puzzle. The statement is a passive observation, not an active denial by the SEC. This lack of a clear, alternative explanation necessitates a thorough evaluation of all potential causal factors.

2.2 Evaluating Alternative Causal Factors

Before concluding the AWS outage was the cause, other significant factors must be considered. The SEC was operating under highly unusual and stressful conditions at the time.

2.2.1 The U.S. Government Shutdown

A partial federal government shutdown had commenced on October 1, 2025.²² As a result, the SEC implemented its shutdown contingency plan. It operated on a “bare-bones basis” with an estimated 90% of its staff furloughed.³ The agency confirmed it would have only a “very limited number of staff members available”.²³ They could respond only to emergency situations.

The SEC’s plan called for the continued operation of the EDGAR system, which is managed by an external contractor.²⁴ However, this skeleton-crew environment created significant operational risk. Reduced oversight of contractors, the inability to perform non-emergency maintenance, and delayed response times could have transformed a minor glitch into a noticeable outage. The shutdown, therefore, represents a critical environmental stressor.

2.2.2 “EDGAR Next” System Modernization

The SEC was in the midst of a massive, multi-year technological overhaul of its filing system, branded “EDGAR Next”.²⁵ This complex initiative aimed to modernize the platform’s architecture. A key deadline had recently passed. All existing EDGAR filers were required to complete a new enrollment process by September 15, 2025.²⁵

Major IT system transitions are inherently risky. They can introduce new software bugs or create unforeseen performance bottlenecks. It is plausible that the “intermittent issues” on October 20 were an aftershock of this ongoing modernization effort.²⁵

2.2.3 Unrelated Internal Failure

Finally, the possibility of a simple, coincidental failure cannot be dismissed. An internal hardware failure, a software bug from the EDGAR contractor, or a network issue within the SEC’s own infrastructure are all potential causes. Any of these would be entirely independent of the AWS outage.

2.3 Verdict on Causation: Weighing Probabilities

No definitive “smoking gun” exists in the public record to link the two events. However, applying the Skeptical Researcher’s Framework and weighing the probabilities points toward a strong causal connection. The government shutdown likely acted as a critical contributing factor.

The circumstantial evidence for a direct link is compelling. The timing is nearly perfect. The EDGAR issues occurred squarely within the window of the AWS outage and resolved at approximately the same time. Furthermore, the nature of the AWS failure—a disruption of core infrastructure services like databases (DynamoDB), computing (EC2), and DNS—is precisely the type of event that would manifest as “intermittent issues” for a complex application like EDGAR.

The SEC’s official silence on the root cause is perhaps the most telling piece of evidence. A major system failure in government IT typically prompts an explanation. The absence of any stated alternative cause makes the most obvious and temporally correlated event—the AWS outage—the most probable culprit. The agency’s communication appears to be a work of strategic ambiguity. By neither confirming nor denying a link, the SEC avoided a public admission of its dependence on a single commercial provider.

The government shutdown, while not the root cause, likely acted as a systemic threat multiplier. It degraded the SEC’s institutional capacity for resilience. Even if the AWS outage was the direct trigger, the shutdown almost certainly hampered the agency’s ability to diagnose the problem, coordinate with its contractor, and communicate effectively. This created the conditions for a slower, more opaque response.

The following table provides a structured analysis of the potential causes. It weighs the evidence for and against each hypothesis to justify this conclusion.

Table 2: Analysis of Potential Causes for EDGAR Disruption

Potential Cause	Evidence For	Evidence Against	Assessed Likelihood & Rationale
Direct Consequence of AWS US-EAST-1 Outage	– Exact temporal correlation. – Nature of AWS failure (IaaS/PaaS) aligns with symptoms of EDGAR issue. – SEC’s documented use of AWS for core infrastructure (see Section 3). – SEC’s silence on an alternative cause.	– No official confirmation from the SEC. – News reports explicitly state “no reports that the two incidents are related”.[³]	High. This is the most parsimonious explanation. The alignment of timing, technical plausibility, and the SEC’s known dependency creates a powerful circumstantial case. The lack of an official denial is more significant than the lack of confirmation.
Result of “EDGAR Next” Modernization	– Major IT transitions are inherently risky and often cause instability.[²⁵] – Recent mandatory enrollment deadline could have stressed the system.	– The timing is coincidental. A failure related to a mid-September deadline would be less likely to manifest over a month later without prior issues.	Low. While plausible in a vacuum, the perfect timing of the AWS outage makes a coincidental internal failure at the exact same time a far less likely scenario.
Exacerbation of an Issue by Government Shutdown	– 90% of staff furloughed, creating a “bare-bones” operation.[³] – Severely limited ability to perform oversight, diagnose issues, or respond to non-emergencies.[²³]	– The shutdown itself would not cause a technical failure, only degrade the response to one. It is a contributing factor, not a root cause.	High (as a contributing factor). The shutdown created an environment of heightened risk and reduced resilience, almost certainly worsening the impact and duration of the disruption, regardless of the initial trigger.
Unrelated, Coincidental Internal Failure	– Complex systems can fail at any time for myriad reasons. Coincidences do occur.	– Statistically improbable for an unrelated major failure to occur at the exact same time as a global event known to cause such failures.	Very Low. This represents the null hypothesis. Without any evidence to support it, and given the strong evidence for the AWS outage as the cause, it is the least likely explanation.

This conclusion rests on a critical premise: that the SEC was technologically dependent on AWS in a way that made it vulnerable to this specific failure.

Section 3: The SEC’s Digital Dependency Profile

To move from probable cause to a highly credible explanation, we must establish that the SEC has a deep, operational dependency on AWS. This would make it a plausible victim of the US-EAST-1 outage. Public records and internal watchdog reports paint a clear picture. The agency has increasingly outsourced its foundational technology to AWS, but it has done so without a coherent, overarching strategy.

3.1 Mapping the Contractual and Technical Relationship

The SEC’s relationship with AWS is not casual. It is codified in multiple, high-value contracts for essential cloud services. These agreements show that the agency procures the most fundamental building blocks of cloud computing from AWS. This places its systems squarely in the potential blast radius of an infrastructure-level failure.

Publicly available federal procurement data reveals several key contracts:

Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) 50310220A0019: This agreement provides the SEC with Amazon Web Services Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) and Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS). Its purpose is to “migrate and operate selected SEC on premise services to the AWS Cloud Environment.” The value of this BPA was increased to $6,249,900, indicating a significant investment.²⁶
Contract 47QTCA19D000C: This is a $3.4 million BPA specifically for “AWS ACCOUNT AND CLOUDN FOUNDATION.” The service classification is for “Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services”.²⁷

These contracts are for foundational services—raw computing, storage, networking, and data processing. They are precisely the categories of services that were disrupted during the US-EAST-1 outage. This provides a direct, documented link between the services the SEC procures and the services that failed.

The choice of an IaaS/PaaS service model is particularly significant. This model functions like a rental of raw digital infrastructure. It places the burden of architecting for high availability and multi-region failover squarely on the customer—in this case, the SEC. The agency’s contracts show it accepted a high degree of architectural responsibility for its own resilience in the cloud.

3.2 A History of Ad Hoc Implementation: Inspector General Findings

The SEC’s own internal watchdog has seriously questioned the agency’s ability to manage this architectural responsibility. A series of reports from the SEC’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has painted a troubling picture of the agency’s approach to cloud adoption. The OIG described it as reactive and strategically incoherent.

A key audit report (No. 556), published in November 2019, delivered a sharp critique.²⁸ The OIG found that the SEC “did not fully implement its cloud strategy.” Instead, it had relied on an “ad hoc approach” to migrating its systems to the cloud.²⁹ The report concluded that the agency lacked enterprise-level coordination and failed to track cloud-related goals. As a result, it had “not yet fully realized the potential performance and economic benefits” of cloud computing.³⁰

More alarmingly, the OIG identified significant gaps in security and compliance. The audit found that some of the SEC’s cloud contracts “didn’t include security requirements.” It also noted “incomplete or missing security assessment reports” and a failure to ensure compliance with the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP).³¹

This documented history serves as a diagnostic blueprint for the vulnerabilities that manifested on October 20. An “ad hoc” migration strategy is a recipe for creating a brittle architecture. Such an approach often involves moving applications to the cloud in the simplest manner possible. This typically means using a provider’s default and largest region (US-EAST-1) without undertaking the complex engineering required to build a truly resilient, multi-region system. The OIG’s past findings provide a direct and compelling explanation for why the SEC would be acutely vulnerable to the specific type of single-region failure that occurred.

The following table consolidates the contractual data. It provides quantifiable evidence of the SEC’s dependency on AWS for its core technological foundation.

Table 3: SEC Cloud Service Contracts with AWS

Contract/BPA Number	Contractor	Service Description	Contract Value / Ceiling	Service Model	Source(s)
50310220A0019	Amazon Web Services, Inc.	IaaS and PaaS to migrate and operate SEC services in the AWS Cloud Environment at the SEC (ACES).	$6,249,900	IaaS / PaaS	[²⁶]
47QTCA19D000C	Amazon Web Services, Inc.	AWS ACCOUNT AND CLOUDN FOUNDATION; Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services.	$3,400,000	IaaS / PaaS	[²⁷]

The SEC’s documented dependency and strategic shortcomings set the stage for the incident on October 20. This incident itself serves as a case study for a much larger, systemic issue.

Section 4: Systemic Risk and the Concentration of Critical Infrastructure

The concurrent AWS and SEC disruptions serve as a powerful case study for a systemic risk that increasingly worries regulators worldwide. This risk is the concentration of critical digital infrastructure in the hands of a few “hyperscale” cloud providers.

4.1 The Concentration Risk Externality

A small oligopoly dominates the global public cloud market. Three providers—Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud—collectively control approximately 63% of the worldwide market.³² This immense concentration creates a new and potent form of systemic risk. A significant failure at any one of these providers can now trigger cascading disruptions across the entire global economy.

Table 4: Global Cloud Infrastructure Market Share, Q2 2025

Provider	Market Share
Amazon Web Services (AWS)	30%
Microsoft Azure	20%
Google Cloud	13%
Alibaba Cloud	4%
Oracle Cloud	3%
Salesforce	2%
IBM Cloud	2%
Tencent Cloud	2%
All Others	24%
Source: Synergy Research Group, Statista [³³]

Financial regulators have begun to identify this as a potential threat to financial stability.³⁴ As banks, trading firms, and even regulators migrate their core operations to the cloud, they become dependent on the same underlying infrastructure. An outage at a major cloud provider can therefore cause numerous financial institutions to fail at the same time. This correlates their operational risks in a way that was not possible when each firm managed its own data centers.³⁵

The October 20th outage was a real-world manifestation of this theoretical risk. A single DNS error in one region of one company caused tangible disruptions at banks, payment processors, and a major market regulator.⁴ This risk can be described as an “externality,” a concept similar to industrial pollution. A factory benefits financially from its production, but the public bears the cost of the resulting pollution. Similarly, individual firms reap the benefits of moving to a single dominant cloud provider. However, society as a whole bears the systemic risk of a concentrated critical infrastructure.³⁵ The benefits are private, but the risk is socialized.

This situation creates a paradoxical inversion of roles. The SEC regulates public companies for operational resilience. Yet it experienced a critical operational failure dictated by the performance of one of its key vendors. This highlights a significant gap in existing regulatory frameworks. Financial regulators have extensive rules for the IT resilience of the banks they oversee. However, far less direct oversight exists for the critical third-party technology providers upon whom both the banks and the regulators themselves now depend.

4.2 The “Democratic Deficit” of Public Sector Cloud Reliance

When government agencies like the SEC become dependent on this highly concentrated commercial infrastructure, it creates a “democratic deficit”.³⁶ This term refers to a fundamental governance failure. Essential public functions—like corporate financial disclosure and market oversight—become subject to the operational stability and unilateral control of a private, commercial entity.

The situation is analogous to a town privatizing its water supply. The town may save money in the short term. However, a private, for-profit company now controls an essential public utility. A failure in that private infrastructure directly impacts citizens, but accountability is now filtered through a commercial contract rather than direct public governance.

The October 20th outage demonstrates that the digital infrastructure underpinning market regulation is not a public utility. It is a commercial service, as vulnerable to technical glitches as a video game or a streaming app. This reality raises critical questions about digital sovereignty, public accountability, and the long-term resilience of core government functions.³⁶

The incident exposes a fundamental conflict. On one side is the public good of operational resilience. On the other are the private economic incentives driving cloud adoption. Government agencies are often under pressure to modernize IT and reduce costs.³⁷ The pay-as-you-go model of the cloud is attractive. However, achieving true, robust resilience—through complex and expensive architectures like multi-cloud deployments—runs counter to the primary cost-saving driver. The result is a market failure. The agency internalizes the cost savings, while the public externalizes the risk of failure.

Given these systemic risks, the incident demands a forward-looking response based on the lessons learned.

Section 5: Recommendations for Enhancing Operational Resilience

The findings of this report lead to a series of actionable recommendations. They are designed to mitigate the identified risks. These recommendations are directed at policymakers, regulators, and the public and private entities reliant on cloud infrastructure.

5.1 For Regulatory and Oversight Bodies (e.g., Congress, GAO, OMB)

Mandate Comprehensive Dependency Mapping. To counteract the current lack of visibility, critical federal agencies should be required to conduct and publicly report on their dependencies on external cloud providers. These assessments must identify single points of failure and critical dependencies on single cloud regions.³⁶
Establish a Framework for Direct Oversight of Critical Technology Providers. To close the existing regulatory gap, the United States should explore legislation analogous to the European Union’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). Such a framework would establish direct regulatory oversight for designated “Critical Third-Party Service Providers,” including hyperscale cloud platforms.³⁸
Update Federal Procurement and Security Standards. To ensure resilience is a core requirement, Federal procurement guidelines like FedRAMP must evolve. They must incorporate explicit architectural resilience requirements for critical government systems. For the most essential functions, these standards should mandate verifiable multi-region or even multi-cloud architectures.³⁹

5.2 For Public and Private Sector Entities (including the SEC)

Implement OIG Recommendations and Develop a Coherent Cloud Strategy. To address documented strategic shortfalls, the SEC and other agencies must move beyond an “ad hoc” approach to cloud adoption. They must fully implement the recommendations of their own Inspectors General to develop an enterprise-wide cloud strategy that prioritizes resilience over simple cost savings.²⁹
Architect for Resilience, Not Just Migration. To shift from a reactive to a proactive posture, the institutional mindset must change. The goal should be to actively “design for cloud failure,” not just “migrate to the cloud.” This requires a deeper technical approach, including the use of multiple availability zones and the consideration of multi-cloud architectures for essential functions.⁴⁰
Develop and Test Comprehensive Exit Strategies. To mitigate the risks of vendor lock-in, all entities relying on a single Cloud Service Provider (CSP) for critical functions should develop, document, and regularly test viable exit strategies. These plans are essential to provide actionable options during a prolonged outage or a major contract dispute.³⁸

Conclusion

The concurrent disruptions at Amazon Web Services and the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2025, were more than a technical anomaly. They were a watershed moment. They revealed the hidden fragilities of our modern digital infrastructure.

A definitive causal link cannot be established with absolute certainty without an official admission from the SEC. However, a skeptical analysis of the available evidence leads to a conclusion of high probability. The EDGAR system’s “intermittent issues” were a direct consequence of the AWS US-EAST-1 outage. The exact temporal correlation, the nature of the AWS failure, the SEC’s documented dependency on AWS, and its history of a flawed cloud strategy all combine to form a compelling causal narrative. The ongoing U.S. government shutdown acted as a critical contributing factor, degrading the SEC’s institutional resilience and multiplying the incident’s impact.

Ultimately, this event serves as a stark and timely warning. It is a real-world manifestation of the systemic risks posed by the extreme concentration of critical digital infrastructure. This incident powerfully illustrates the “democratic deficit” and the erosion of digital sovereignty. It reinforces the urgent need to answer critical policy questions about the public sector’s reliance on private infrastructure.

The event underscores the need for a paradigm shift in how public institutions approach cloud adoption. They must move from a narrow focus on cost and convenience to a strategic imperative for resilience, accountability, and digital sovereignty. Failure to address these vulnerabilities will leave the core operations of government and the economy dangerously exposed to the next inevitable failure of a system upon which we have all become too dependent.

Works Cited

The Times of India. “Amazon Web Services outage: What brought the internet down across the world for more than 15 hours.” October 20, 2025.
PYMNTS. “SEC’s EDGAR Corporate Filings Database ‘Operating Normally’ After Technical Issue.” October 20, 2025.
PYMNTS. “SEC’s EDGAR Corporate Filings Database ‘Operating Normally’ After Technical Issue.” October 20, 2025.
Financial Express. “How the AWS outage exposed the internet’s fragile core.” October 20, 2025.
The Register. “AWS outage exposes Achilles heel: central control plane.” October 20, 2025.
The Times of India. “Amazon Web Services outage: What brought the internet down across the world for more than 15 hours.” October 20, 2025.
The Times of India. “Amazon Web Services outage: What brought the internet down across the world for more than 15 hours.” October 20, 2025.
Financial Express. “How the AWS outage exposed the internet’s fragile core.” October 20, 2025.
The Times of India. “Amazon Web Services outage: What brought the internet down across the world for more than 15 hours.” October 20, 2025.
Deployflow. “AWS Outage October 2025: What Caused It & How to Future-Proof Your Business.” October 21, 2025.
AWS Health Dashboard. “Service health history for US-EAST-1.” October 20, 2025.
Deployflow. “AWS Outage October 2025: What Caused It & How to Future-Proof Your Business.” October 21, 2025.
The Guardian. “Amazon Web Services outage takes down websites and apps – as it happened.” October 20, 2025.
TechRadar. “Amazon Web Services (AWS) is down, taking Alexa, Ring, Snapchat and Fortnite with it.” October 20, 2025.
TechRadar. “Amazon Web Services (AWS) is down, taking Alexa, Ring, Snapchat and Fortnite with it.” October 20, 2025.
The Economic Times. “Amazon Web Services outage impacts major US airlines.” October 20, 2025.
Bristows LLP. “AWS US-EAST-1 incident: Regulators concentrate on concentration risk.” Inquisitive Minds. October 20, 2025.
TechRadar. “Amazon Web Services (AWS) is down, taking Alexa, Ring, Snapchat and Fortnite with it.” October 20, 2025.
TechRadar. “Amazon Web Services (AWS) is down, taking Alexa, Ring, Snapchat and Fortnite with it.” October 20, 2025.
The Economic Times. “Amazon Web Services outage impacts major US airlines.” October 20, 2025.
AWS Health Dashboard. “Service health history for US-EAST-1.” October 20, 2025.
Pryor Cashman LLP. “Shut Down But Not Out: Navigating the SEC During the Shutdown.” October 2, 2025.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “SEC Operational Status.” Accessed October 21, 2025.
McGuireWoods. “SEC Operations During the Government Shutdown: Key Takeaways.” October 1, 2025.
The National Law Review. “SEC Launches EDGAR Next, Mandatory Enrollment Deadline Approaches.” September 20, 2025.
SAM.gov. “Limited Source Justification (LSJ) – Amazon Web… – SAM.gov.” February 15, 2022.
Federal Compass. “Securities and Exchange Commission Awarded Contracts – Cloud.” Accessed October 21, 2025.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Inspector General. “The SEC Can More Strategically and Securely Plan, Manage, and Implement Cloud Computing Services, Report No. 556.” November 7, 2019.
Project On Government Oversight. “Keeping Watch as Agencies Migrate to the Cloud.” November 27, 2019.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Inspector General. “The SEC Can More Strategically and Securely Plan, Manage, and Implement Cloud Computing Services, Report No. 556.” November 7, 2019.
ExecutiveGov. “Report: SEC Failed to Fully Implement 2017 Cloud Strategy.” November 12, 2019.
Bristows LLP. “AWS US-EAST-1 incident: Regulators concentrate on concentration risk.” Inquisitive Minds. October 20, 2025.
Statista. “Worldwide market share of leading cloud infrastructure service providers in Q2 2025.” August 21, 2025.
Regulation Tomorrow. “AFM and DNB report on digital dependency in the financial sector.” October 21, 2025.
European Securities and Markets Authority. “Cloud outsourcing and financial stability risks.” ESMA Report on Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities. No. 2, 2021.
Tech Policy Press. “Amazon Cloud Outage Reveals ‘Democratic Deficit’ in Relying on Big Tech.” October 20, 2025.
Amazon Web Services. “The Trusted Cloud for Government.” Accessed October 21, 2025.
PIFS International. “Cloud Adoption in the Financial Sector and Concentration Risk.” October 2025.
Amazon Web Services. “GovRAMP on AWS.” Accessed October 21, 2025.
Deployflow. “AWS Outage October 2025: What Caused It & How to Future-Proof Your Business.” October 21, 2025.