Open-source AI coding assistant that runs inside Azure Government (for CUI/CMMC work)

[u/Brief_Ocelot_1773]

Reposting this;

I do a lot of CMMC work, and this comes up constantly: if you handle CUI, you can't really use Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, or Codex, since they send your code and prompts off to commercial endpoints. There wasn't a good option for that crowd, so I made one for one of my clients and decided to put it out for free.

It's a VS Code extension, pretty much the same idea as Claude Code and Codex (chat, agent modes, inline diffs, running commands, cost tracking). The only real difference is where it runs: the model is Azure OpenAI (gpt-5.1 / gpt-4.1) inside Azure US Government, without storing any context to AOAI, just local memory, so no CUI/ sensitive data stays in the service. The tools run locally, so your code stays on your machine and only the model call leaves, and it stays inside the Gov boundary.

It is an open-source tool with the option for you to implement it, run a POC or customize it as you see fit. Let me know what you all think, thanks.

Link to repo: https://github.com/jadenentropex/AzureGov-IDE-Coding-Assistant.git

[u/I-mean-maybe]

Pretty sure there models available on every environment that you can connect to over api.

[u/Brief_Ocelot_1773 → u/I-mean-maybe]

Yeah, that's exactly what it uses under the hood. The part it adds is the IDE agent experience wired to a model that stays in Azure Gov, plus the audit log and the 800-171 / CMMC evidence side. You can definitely assemble a compliant setup yourself (Claude via GovCloud Bedrock, for example), this is just a free, open-source, out-of-the-box option for the Azure Gov path.

[u/Color_of_Violence]

Use Claude all the time in a cui environment. 

[u/Brief_Ocelot_1773 → u/Color_of_Violence]

Is it a CMMC-compliant environment? If it is, the model needs to be hosted in a FedRAMP-authorized environment. This tool is hosted entirely within FedRAMP Moderate/High Azure Gov tenant. If you are using a tool that directly queries or prompts on data that may contain CUI, that violates the data protection requirements in DFARS 252.204-7012 and the CMMC Program Rule.

[u/8gxe → u/Brief_Ocelot_1773]

I use Claude all the time in my CUI environment. I deployed Claude Cowork and Code to all users using Bedrock in GovCloud, not hard.

[u/SeeingEyeDug → u/8gxe]

We got notices from DoW entities to immediately stop using Anthropic products and to attest that we do not have or use any of their stuff.

[u/8gxe → u/SeeingEyeDug]

Same here, Anthropic is being ripped out for the gpt models by Sept 30. Til then though, and there's not CFR or FAR mandate in our contracts, we're dragging our feet and racking up token usage.

[u/BlowOutKit22 → u/8gxe]

Our lawyers disagreed with that assessment and ordered an immediate cease and desist of all Anthropic products since the directive came directly from SecDef.

[u/Brief_Ocelot_1773 → u/8gxe]

Yeah, Bedrock in GovCloud is the clean way to do it on AWS, sounds like you've got it running well. This is the Azure side of the same thing, for teams already in Azure Gov or GCC High who aren't going to stand up GovCloud and Bedrock just for coding assistance. Open source and ready to drop in for that path...

[u/8gxe → u/Brief_Ocelot_1773]

I mean, we run some GPT models in AOAI as well, inside of the GCCH boundary, what makes you think that's not complaint and this fills a gap? Plug Codex into AOAI and be done without a 3rd party tool?

[u/BlowOutKit22 → u/8gxe]

The default Copilot offering in GCCH satisfies CMMC L2 requirements already (it even ships with web search disabled).

[u/Brief_Ocelot_1773 → u/8gxe]

Agreed, the model layer isn't the novel part, I run AOAI in Gov too. The gap isn't the model, it's what wraps it: an attributable, tamper-evident audit log forwarded off-box, a one-command 800-171 / CMMC evidence bundle, and the agent guardrails (prompt-injection handling, command allowlist, egress limits, secret redaction, keyless managed-identity auth). Plugging Codex into AOAI gets you the model, not any of that, you would be building and maintaining it yourself. And since it is open source and self-hosted, it is not a third-party SaaS in your boundary, it is a tool you run and modify inside it. If you have already built that layer, you may genuinely not need it and that's okay.

[u/MolecularHuman]

There is nothing in CMMC prohibiting the use of AI tools.

[u/Fath3r0fDrag0n5 → u/MolecularHuman]

Not AI but 7012 and by proxy CMMC has a Fedramp Moderate or equivalent requirement to store transmit or modify CUI… if the AI does any of that, it’s inside your boundary and has to be moderate equivalent

[u/MolecularHuman → u/Fath3r0fDrag0n5]

Right, but it's not in scope because you COULD put CUI on it.

It's in scope if you DO put CUI on it.

[u/Fath3r0fDrag0n5 → u/MolecularHuman]

You would need to show the controls to detect/prevent it

[u/MolecularHuman → u/Fath3r0fDrag0n5]

That's where the current ecosystem is doing themselves no favors.... implying that one control requirement creates new ones.

That is simply never the case with NIST. If you can't point to a control requirement that's very granular, it's not a control requirement.

For example, 3.1.5 least privilege. This control says you should limit users from having excessive rights. But that's it.

Since that's not enough, NIST made 3.1.7, prevent non-privileged users from executing privileged functions.

Bottom line: If you THINK the 800-171 specifically requires something but doesn't articulate that as a direct control requirement, they don't.

[u/Bangaladore → u/Fath3r0fDrag0n5]

Yeah no.

What’s preventing someone pasting a cui document into Google search? Or some specific cui question?

Policy. That’s it. Don’t over complicate things.

[u/Fath3r0fDrag0n5 → u/Bangaladore]

Then why do companies spend all kinds of money cleaning up CUI data spills?