# Create the test user
aws ds-data create-user \
 --directory-id "your-directory-id" \
 --sam-account-name "TestUser" \
 --given-name "Test" \
 --surname "User"

# Set a password for the test user 
aws ds reset-user-password \
 --directory-id "your-directory-id" \
 --user-name "TestUser" \
 --new-password "YourSecurePassword123!"

AWS IAM Identity Center provides a web-based access portal that gives your workforce a single place to view their AWS accounts and applications. With the recent launch of IAM Identity Center multi-Region replication, customers can replicate their IAM Identity Center instance across multiple AWS Regions to improve resilience and reduce latency for a globally distributed workforce. As a result, users have a dedicated access portal URL in each Region where Identity Center is replicated, and where administrators need a consistent way to manage these portals to ensure that each user reaches the right one.

This post walks you through building a custom vanity domain (for example, aws.mycompany.com) that serves as a single, memorable entry point for access to IAM Identity Center through the AWS Management Console. The solution uses latency-based routing to automatically redirect users to their nearest healthy access portal endpoint and provides a mechanism to trigger failovers when a Regional Identity Center instance, or the broader AWS Region, is impaired. Because this solution operates outside of Identity Center—at the DNS and load balancer layer—users are transparently redirected to the appropriate Regional access portal URL. Note that the vanity domain itself will not appear in the browser’s address bar.

This guide is structured in three progressive phases: a single-Region redirect, multi-Region latency routing, and automatic health-based failover. You can adopt each phase independently, depending on your organization’s needs.

Note: While this guide focuses on IAM Identity Center access portal endpoints, the same approach using Amazon Route 53 latency-based routing, Application Load Balancer (ALB) redirects, and Amazon Application Recovery Controller (ARC) Region switch can be applied to build a custom vanity domain and intelligent routing layer for any other HTTP endpoint type.

IAM Identity Center supports multiple access portal URL formats that resolve to the same web portal. The following table summarizes the supported formats in the standard AWS (classic) partition, along with their capabilities:

* Each Regional URL resolves only to its own Region’s portal instance and doesn’t fail over to another Region. Multi-Region here means the URL format is available in every Region where IAM Identity Center is replicated. To route users across Regions dynamically, use the vanity domain approach described in this post.

Note: The ★ highlighted row (https://{idcInstanceId}.portal.{region}.app.aws) is the recommended URL format. It supports both dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6) and IAM Identity Center multi-Region replication. The awsapps.com formats aren’t always available in newer Regions and don’t support multi-Region capabilities. In additional replicated Regions, the custom alias isn’t supported, and the awsapps.com parent domain isn’t available.

As you expand your IAM Identity Center footprint through multi-Region replication, each replicated Region provides a dedicated access portal URL—directing your users to the low-latency entry point closest to their location. A user connecting from Europe and one connecting from Asia Pacific each benefit from their respective Regional endpoint. To deliver the best experience, organizations need a consistent, centrally managed way to direct users to the correct Regional destination; there are a few common approaches you can use to achieve this.

Customers typically start with a single Regional endpoint, which is straightforward to configure, but users in distant Regions experience higher latency, and a Regional incident can affect all users regardless of location. Others maintain per-Region bookmarks or configuration, which gives each user population the right endpoint but requires ongoing IT coordination and clear communication to users.

Custom vanity domains give you full control over DNS routing, health checks, and failover of your access portal connections; all behind a single, brand-aligned domain name (for example, aws.mycompany.com) that users access. A vanity domain makes this start URL memorable and consistent for users, regardless of the underlying IAM Identity Center configuration – a single address to remember and share, compared to maintaining a separate bookmark for each Regional endpoint or managing a growing list of application tiles in your external identity provider. The rest of this guide walks you through how to deploy this solution step by step.

The solution builds a lightweight routing and redirect layer in front of the IAM Identity Center access portal Regional endpoints. The architecture has the following components:

• AWS IAM Identity Center – Your existing Identity Center instance
• Amazon Route 53 – Manages your vanity domain’s hosted zone, latency-based routing policy, and health checks
• AWS Certificate Manager (ACM) – Issues and automatically renews TLS certificates for your vanity domain in each Region
• Application Load Balancer (ALB) – Handles HTTP and HTTPS traffic, issuing 302 redirects to the appropriate Regional access portal endpoint
• Amazon Application Recovery Controller (ARC) Region switch – Orchestrates Regional failovers by controlling Route 53 health check states, so traffic is automatically shifted away from an unhealthy Region

This guide is structured in three progressive phases. You can adopt each phase incrementally based on your needs:

• Phase 1: Sets up the vanity domain with a redirect to a single Regional access portal endpoint. Suitable for organizations with a single-Region Identity Center deployment.
• Phase 2: Extends Phase 1 across multiple Regions with latency-based routing, so users are automatically directed to the nearest Regional endpoint. Requires IAM Identity Center multi-Region replication.
• Phase 3: Adds an ARC Region switch for managed Regional failover. Without Phase 3, a Regional impairment requires manual DNS updates to redirect traffic. ARC automates this with rehearsable, controlled failover plans.

Figure 1: Solution architecture for custom vanity domain routing with IAM Identity Center.

When a user navigates to aws.mycompany.com, the following happens:

1. Route 53 evaluates the latency records and routes traffic to the ALB in the lowest-latency healthy Region.
2. The ALB terminates TLS using an ACM-managed certificate and issues a 302 redirect to the corresponding Regional Identity Center access portal URL.
3. The user’s browser follows the redirect and loads the access portal directly. Subsequent authentication traffic flows between the browser and AWS—the ALB isn’t in the path.

If you’ve implemented Phase 3, ARC controls Route 53 health check states for each Region. With this configuration, you can stop routing traffic to any Region considered unhealthy.

Before you begin to build the solution, ensure you have the following in place:

1. An existing top-level domain (TLD) (for example, mycompany.com).
2. An AWS IAM Identity Center organization instance configured.
3. For Phases 2 and 3, you need IAM Identity Center multi-Region replication configured with at least two Regions. See Setting up IAM Identity Center multi-Region replication for instructions.
4. AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) permissions on a dedicated networking or shared services account in your organization to manage Route 53, ACM, Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2), ALB (phase 1 and 2), and ARC (phase 3).

In this phase, you create the foundational infrastructure: a Route 53 hosted zone, an ACM-managed TLS certificate, and an internet-facing ALB that issues a 302 redirect to your Regional access portal URL. By the end, users who navigate to aws.mycompany.com will be seamlessly redirected to your Identity Center portal.

The hosted zone holds the DNS records that control how aws.mycompany.com resolves. If your top-level domain (mycompany.com) is already registered in Route 53, you create a subdomain hosted zone. If it’s registered with another registrar, you create a public hosted zone and configure name server (NS) delegation manually.

1. In the AWS Management Console, navigate to Route 53 and choose Hosted zones, then Create hosted zone.
2. Enter your vanity domain in the Domain name field (for example, aws.mycompany.com).
3. Select Public hosted zone as the type, then choose Create hosted zone.
4. Note the four NS records that Route 53 creates for the new hosted zone. You will need these in the next step.

Figure 2: Route 53 hosted zone details

To make Route 53 authoritative for aws.mycompany.com, you must add an NS record in the parent zone (mycompany.com) pointing to the name servers of the new hosted zone.

• If mycompany.com is hosted in Route 53: Open the mycompany.com hosted zone, choose Create record, set the record name to aws, the type to NS, and paste the four NS values from the previous step. Choose Create records.
• If mycompany.com is hosted elsewhere: Sign in to your registrar’s DNS management console and add an NS record for aws.mycompany.com using the four name server values from the previous step.

Note: DNS propagation for NS delegation can take up to 48 hours, though it typically completes within a few minutes for Route 53-to-Route 53 delegation.

Figure 3: Create a NS record type to delegate your subdomain from the parent domain

Your ALB requires a TLS certificate for aws.mycompany.com to serve HTTPS traffic. ACM provides free public certificates with automatic renewal.

1. Go to the Certificate Manager console in the primary Region of IAM Identity Center (for example, us-east-2) and choose Request a certificate.
2. Select Request a public certificate and choose Next.
3. Enter your domain name (for example, aws.mycompany.com). Choose Add another name to this certificate and enter your Regional sub-domain (for example, us-east-2.aws.mycompany.com).
4. Leave other options as defaults (Disable export, DNS validation – recommended, and key algorithm – RSA 2048) and choose Request.
5. In the certificate details page, choose Create records in Route 53. ACM will automatically add the validation CNAME records to your hosted zone. The certificate status changes to Issued within a few minutes.

Figure 4: Request an ACM certificate for your domain

The security group needs to allow inbound HTTP and HTTPS traffic for both IPv4 and IPv6 from the public internet to make the load balancer reachable.

1. Go to the Amazon EC2 console, navigate to Security Groups, and choose Create security group.
2. Enter a Name (for example, identitycenter-global-domain-alb-sg-us-east-2) and Description. Add four rules by choosing Add Rule under Inbound Rules.
   1. Set Type to HTTP, and Source to Anywhere-IPv4 (0.0.0.0/0) and to Anywhere-IPv6 (::/0).
   2. Set Type to HTTPS, and Source to Anywhere-IPv4 (0.0.0.0/0) and to Anywhere-IPv6 (::/0).
3. Choose Add Rule under Outbound Rules and set Type to All traffic and Source to Anywhere-IPv6 (::/0).
4. Choose Create security group.

Figure 5: ALB security group rules

The ALB is the component that performs the actual redirect to your IAM Identity Center access portal URL. The ALB listener accepts HTTPS requests on port 443 and responds with a 302 redirect to the appropriate Regional Identity Center access portal endpoint.

1. Go to the Amazon EC2 console, navigate to Load Balancers, and choose Create load balancer. Select Application Load Balancer.
2. Enter a name for your ALB (for example, identitycenter-redirect-alb).
3. Configure basic settings: Set the scheme to Internet-facing, IP address type to Dualstack (or IPv4 if IPv6 isn’t supported by your virtual private cloud (VPC)), and select at least two Availability Zones. Ensure that the load balancer is operating in a VPC and subnets that are internet-facing.
4. Under Security Groups choose the Security Group created in the previous step.
5. Configure an HTTP listener: Add a listener on port 80 (HTTP) with Redirect to URL option. Choose URL parts and set Protocol to HTTPS, Port to 443, and status code to 302 (Found).
   

   Figure 6: Add an HTTP listener during ALB creation

6. Configure an HTTPS listener: Add a listener on port 443 (HTTPS) with No pre-routing action (default) and Redirect to URL options. Choose Full URL and set the URL to your Regional Identity Center access portal endpoint (For example, https://ssoins-1234567890.portal.<your-region>.app.aws, for this blog the region is us-east-1). Set status code to 302 (Found).
   

   Figure 7: Add an HTTPS listener

7. Under Default SSL/TLS certificate, select the ACM certificate you created in Step 3.
   

   Note: Make sure to select 302 – Found as the Status code. Selecting 301 – Permanently moved will result in browser caching the redirect URL which will prevent failovers from working correctly until the cache expires.

Create a DNS record in your hosted zone that resolves <your-region>.aws.mycompany.com to your ALB.

1. Open your Route 53 hosted zone for aws.mycompany.com and choose Create record.
2. Set the record name to the AWS Region name (For example: us-east-2) and the record type to A.
3. Toggle Alias and in the drop down menu Route traffic to, select the alias target to Alias to Application and Classic Load Balancer, select your Region (For example:us-east-2), and select your ALB from the dropdown list.
4. Leave routing policy as Simple routing, and select the Region (For example:us-east-2) and choose Create records.
5. Repeat steps 1 through 4 to create AAAA record types.

Figure 8: Route 53 record with simple routing policy

Finally, create a DNS record in your hosted zone that resolves aws.mycompany.com to your Regional Route 53 record.

1. Open your Route 53 hosted zone for aws.mycompany.com and choose Create record.
2. Keep the subdomain name for this record as empty, so aws.mycompany.com is the fully qualified record and set the record type to A.
3. Enable alias: Set the Route traffic to Alias to another record in this hosted zone, and select the hosted zone you created earlier (us-east-2.aws.mycompany.com).
4. Set Routing Policy to Latency and select the corresponding Region (us-east-2 in this example).
5. Add a clear name for the Record ID, such as us-east-2--ipv4 as a differentiator and choose Create records.
6. Repeat the steps 1 through 5 to create AAAA record types with us-east-2--ipv6 as the record ID.

Figure 9: Route 53 record with latency-based routing

Test the configuration by navigating to https://aws.mycompany.com in a browser. You should be redirected to your Identity Center access portal. You can also validate using:
curl -I https://aws.mycompany.com

Expected response:

HTTP/2 302

location: https://ssoins-1234567890.portal.<your-region>.app.aws

Tip: To deploy Phase 1 automatically, download the CloudFormation template from the Deploying with CloudFormation section below.

Phase 2 extends the solution to support IAM Identity Center multi-Region replication by deploying an ALB in each replicated Region and configuring Route 53 latency-based routing. Users are automatically directed to the access portal in the Region that has the lowest network latency from their location, which matches the active-active behavior of the Identity Center access portal itself.

Repeat the steps from Request an ACM Certificate for each additional Region (for example, us-west-2) where you’ve replicated IAM Identity Center.

Repeat the steps from Create a security group for Identity Center ALB and Create an ALB with an HTTP and HTTPS redirect rule in each additional Region. In each ALB’s redirect rule, set the target URL to the access portal endpoint for that specific Region. For example:

• us-east-2 ALB redirects to https://ssoins-1234567890.portal.us-east-2.app.aws
• us-west-2 ALB redirects to https://ssoins-1234567890.portal.us-west-2.app.aws

For each additional Region where you’ve deployed an ALB and replicated Identity Center, create Regional and latency A and AAAA records as outlined in Create Regional Route 53 records pointing to your ALB and Add latency-based routing configurations.

Tip: To deploy Phase 2 automatically, download the CloudFormation template from the following Deploying with CloudFormation section.

Phase 3 introduces Amazon Application Recovery Controller (ARC) Region switch, a fully managed capability that you can use to plan, practice, and orchestrate Regional failovers with confidence. ARC Region switch vends Route 53 health checks directly as part of a Region switch plan. You attach these generated health checks to your Route 53 latency records, and ARC controls their healthy or unhealthy state during plan execution. You can further extend the solution to include custom automation triggered by Amazon CloudWatch alarms or synthetic canaries to update routing control state.

We recommend creating your ARC Region switch plan in the primary Region of your IAM Identity Center for ease of discovery.

Create an ARC Region switch plan that will orchestrate failovers between your IAM Identity Center Regions and auto-generate the Route 53 health checks you will reference in the next step.

1. Open the Application Recovery Controller console and choose Region switch in the navigation pane. Select Create Region Switch Plan.
2. Enter a Plan name (for example, idc-access-portal-failover) and an optional description. Choose Active/Active for Multi-Region recovery approach. Select the Regions where IAM Identity Center is replicated ,including the primary Region.
3. In the Execution Permission section, enter the Amazon Resource Name (ARN) of the IAM role that ARC will use to update Route 53 health check states during plan execution. If you don’t have an existing role, choose Create a new role to have ARC create one automatically. See AWS Managed Policy: AmazonApplicationRecoveryControllerRegionSwitchPlanExecutionPolicy for information about required permissions.
4. Choose Create Plan and proceed to Build workflows. Enter optional descriptions and choose Save and continue.
   

   Figure 10: Region switch plan

5. Set the Workflow type to Activate and set the Region to the corresponding Region (us-east-2 or us-west-2). Within each workflow, choose Add step/Run in Sequence. Choose an execution block to Amazon Route 53 health check execution block under Networking.
6. Choose Add and edit. Enter a Step name (for example, Activate Route53 Record Set).
7. Set the Hosted zone to the hosted zone ID for your aws.mycompany.com domain, and set the Record name to aws.mycompany.com.
8. Expand Record set identifiers. Choose Add record set identifier and enter a unique identifier for the record set (for example, us-east-2--ipv4 and us-east2--ipv6) and select your Region. Add two record set identifiers (A and AAAA records) for each of your Regions.
9. Choose Save step.
10. Repeat steps 5 and 6 for Deactivate and choose Save the plan.
    
    

    Figure 11: Workflow builder

11. Choose Save workflows.
12. Select the newly created plan and choose the Monitoring tab. Note the IDs of the health checks created.
    
    

    Figure 12: IAM Identity Center access portal plan

Associate the ARC-generated health check IDs with the latency-based A and AAAA records you created in Phase 1 and 2. Route 53 uses these health checks—which are now controlled by ARC—to determine which Regions are eligible for DNS resolution. Route 53 still uses latency to choose from the healthy Regions.

1. 1. Go to the Route 53 console and choose Hosted zones.
   2. Select the hosted zone for aws.mycompany.com.
   3. Find the latency-based A record for us-east-2 that you created in Phase 2, and choose Edit record.
   4. In the Health check section, enable Associate with a health check. In the Health check ID dropdown, select the ARC-generated health check for us-east-2 that you noted at the end of the preceding procedure. Note: Ignore the warning This health check ID doesn’t belong to this AWS account. Make sure you have copied it accurately to use it.
   5. Choose Save changes.
   6. Repeat steps 3, 4, and 5 for A and AAAA records for each of your IAM Identity Center Regions.

Figure 13: Update Route53 record sets

Validate the end-to-end configuration by executing a controlled failover. Because latency-based routing will always resolve aws.mycompany.com to us-east-2 for users in the primary geography, deactivating us-east-2 is the most direct way to confirm that Route 53 correctly fails over to us-west-2.

1. 1. Before executing the failover, confirm that aws.mycompany.com is resolving to the us-east-2:
      curl -I https://aws.mycompany.com
      Expected: A record pointing to the us-east-2 access portal URL (for example, https://ssoins-1234567890.portal.us-east-2.app.aws:443/).
   2. Go to the Amazon Application Recovery Controller console. In the left navigation pane, choose Region switch.
   3. Select your Region switch plan (idc-access-portal-failover) to open the plan details page.
   4. Choose Execute recovery.
   5. On the Execute plan page, select us-east-2 as the Region to fail out of.
   6. Select the Deactivate action and choose Start execution. ARC sets the us-east-2 health check to unhealthy. Route 53 stops resolving aws.mycompany.com to the us-east-2 ALB and routes traffic to us-west-2 instead.
   7. After a few seconds, confirm the failover has taken effect:
      curl -I https://aws.mycompany.com
      Expected: 302 redirect to the us-west-2 IAM Identity Center access portal URL
   8. To fail back, choose Execute plan again. Select us-east-2, select the Activate action and choose Start execution. ARC marks the us-east-2 health check healthy and Route 53 resumes routing traffic to that Region.

Tip: To deploy Phase 3 automatically, download the CloudFormation template from the Deploying with CloudFormation section that follows.

As an alternative to the manual console steps described previously, we provide CloudFormation templates that you can download and deploy for each phase. Each template is self-contained and parameterized, so you only need to provide your environment-specific values (such as your vanity domain name, VPC, and subnet IDs). Download the templates from the following links:

• Phase 1 – Single-Region redirect: phase1-single-region-redirect.yaml
• Phase 2 – Multi-Region latency-based routing: phase2-multi-region-latency.yaml
• Phase 3 – ARC Region switch failover: phase3-arc-region-switch.yaml

To deploy a template, navigate to the AWS CloudFormation console, choose Create stack, select Upload a template file, and upload the downloaded YAML file. Follow the prompts to provide parameter values and create the stack. For Phase 2, deploy the template once in each additional Region.

As an alternative to deploying each CloudFormation template individually, you can use the provided deploy.sh bash script to deploy all three phases in sequence. The script automates stack creation across your primary and additional Region. To get started, download the deployment package, then unzip the file into a local directory:

wget https://aws-security-blog-content.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/public/sample/3536-regional-routing-for-aws-access-portals/Vanity-domains-cfn.zip
unzip  Vanity-domains-cfn.zip
cd Vanity-domains-cfn

• TLD – Your top-level domain (for example, mycompany.com)
• TLD_HOSTED_ZONE_ID – The Route 53 hosted zone ID for your top-level domain
• IDC_SUBDOMAIN – The Identity Center subdomain name (for example, aws)
• IDC_INSTANCE_ID – Your IAM Identity Center instance ID (for example, ssoins-1234567890)
• PRIMARY_REGION – The primary Region for your Identity Center instance (for example, us-east-2)
• ADDITIONAL_REGIONS – The additional Region for multi-Region replication (for example, us-west-2)

After updating the configuration, run the deployment script:

./deploy.sh

The script deploys Phase 1 (single-Region redirect), Phase 2 (multi-Region latency-based routing), and Phase 3 (ARC Region switch failover) in order. Monitor the terminal output for stack creation progress and any errors.

After completing the setup, you can integrate the vanity URL (for example, aws.mycompany.com) directly into your identity provider, such as Okta or Microsoft Entra ID, as a bookmark application or a chiclet URL. By configuring the vanity URL as the bookmark target, users who launch the application from their identity provider dashboard are always redirected to the nearest IAM Identity Center access portal endpoint through latency-based routing. If a Regional impairment occurs and a failover is necessary, administrators can execute an ARC Region switch to deactivate the impaired Region, and users will automatically be redirected to the active Identity Center endpoint without any change to the bookmark URL or end-user experience.

In this post, you learned how to build a custom vanity domain for an AWS IAM Identity Center access portal using Amazon Route 53, AWS Certificate Manager, Application Load Balancer, and an Amazon Application Recovery Controller (ARC) Region switch. The three-phase approach lets you start with a single-Region redirect, progressively add latency-based routing as your IAM Identity Center footprint grows with multi-Region replication, and then introduce an ARC Region switch to gain fully managed, rehearsable Regional failover.

For more information about IAM Identity Center multi-Region replication, see the IAM Identity Center User Guide. For more resilience patterns, visit the AWS Architecture Blog posts about Resilience. If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this post, contact AWS Support.

• IAM Identity Center User Guide – Multi-Region Replication
• Amazon Route 53 – Latency-Based Routing
• Amazon Application Recovery Controller – Region switch
• AWS Certificate Manager – Requesting a Public Certificate

A Monday morning security alert flags unauthorized access attempts, security group misconfigurations, and AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policy violations. Your team needs answers fast.

Security teams are using Kiro and Amazon Q Developer to handle repetitive tasks—scanning resources, drafting policies, and researching Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs)—so engineers can focus on risk decisions and complex scenarios that require human judgment, resulting in faster threat response and more consistent security coverage.

This post shows you five ways to use Kiro and Amazon Q Developer to strengthen your AWS security posture based on the AWS Well-Architected Framework Security Pillar. Each technique builds on a common foundation described after the tool overview below.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) gives customers choices when it comes to AI-assisted development and security automation. Whether you prefer Kiro’s agentic integrated development environment (IDE) experience or the deep integration of Amazon Q Developer into your existing AWS environment, both tools can help you implement the security practices described in this post. The right choice depends on your team’s workflow, and in many cases both tools are complementary and can be used together.

Kiro is an AI-powered, agentic, IDE designed by AWS for specification-driven development, combining natural language prompting with structured, intentional coding to generate, test, and deploy applications.

Amazon Q Developer is the generative AI assistant integrated into AWS development and cloud environments, designed to answer questions, generate code, troubleshoot issues, and automate operational tasks across AWS services.

For setup instructions and to learn more, see the Kiro documentation and Amazon Q Developer documentation.

Providing AI assistants with the right context helps them produce more consistent and relevant results. Each of the five techniques in this post becomes significantly more powerful when your AI assistant already understands your organization’s security standards. Setting up persistent context first means every subsequent interaction builds on that foundation, and the results you get from triage, remediation, reviews, and policy development will better reflect your specific environment rather than generic best practices.

Without persistent context, you need to repeat the same security requirements in every prompt such as "enable encryption, use least privilege IAM settings, and enable logging," which leads to inconsistent results and missed controls. Amazon Q Developer IDE Plugin rules and Kiro steering files (CLI and IDE) solve exactly this problem: you can use them to codify your organization’s security standards so AI automatically builds secure infrastructure consistently, without requiring you to repeat requirements in every prompt. Both tools support this capability independently, so you can configure whichever fits your workflow, or use both together for coverage across your full development environment. The following steps show you how to get started with each.

For Amazon Q Developer:

1. Create directory: .amazonq/rules/ in your project root.
2. Create file: .amazonq/rules/security-standards.md.
3. Paste your organization’s security standards in natural language (see “Example security standards context file” below).

For Kiro (steering files):

In Kiro, persistent context documents are called steering files. They give the agent ongoing awareness of your architecture decisions, coding standards, and security requirements across every interaction and every session.

1. Create file: security-standards.md in your project root.
2. Reference it in prompts: Using security-standards.md as context, create....

Pro tip: You can use Kiro itself to help you create steering files. Describe your security requirements in natural language and ask Kiro to generate a structured steering file for your review before saving and activating it. This means your AI assistant can help you build the very context it will later use, making the setup process faster and more thorough.

Example security standards context file:

# AWS Security Standards

## Identity and Access Management
- All IAM roles must use least privilege principles
- Require MFA for console access
- Enable IAM Access Analyzer for all accounts
- Rotate access keys every 90 days
- Use IAM roles for EC2 instances, never embed access keys

## Data Protection
- Enable encryption at rest for all storage services (S3, EBS, RDS)
- Use AWS KMS customer-managed keys for sensitive data
- Enable encryption in transit with TLS 1.2 minimum
- Implement S3 bucket policies denying unencrypted uploads
- Enable versioning and MFA delete for critical S3 buckets

## Infrastructure Protection
- Security groups must follow least privilege (no 0.0.0.0/0 on sensitive ports)
- Deploy resources in private subnets when possible
- Enable VPC Flow Logs for network monitoring
- Use AWS WAF for public-facing applications
- Implement Network ACLs as additional defense layer

## Detective Controls
- Enable CloudTrail in all regions with log file validation
- Configure CloudWatch alarms for security events
- Enable GuardDuty for threat detection
- Set up AWS Config rules for compliance monitoring
- Implement centralized logging with retention policies

## Incident Response
- Create SNS topics for security alerts
- Configure automated responses with AWS Lambda
- Maintain runbooks for common security incidents
- Enable AWS Systems Manager for secure instance access
- Implement automated backup and recovery procedure

What this unlocks:

Without persistent context, a prompt like Create a Lambda function to process customer data could produce a basic function with no encryption, logging, or IAM configuration. AI output is non-deterministic, meaning that without guidance it might or might not include those controls. Steering files and rules documents minimize those variables by providing stronger guidance as part of every prompt and inference input.

With your security standards embedded as in the example above, however, the same prompt generates a function with KMS-encrypted environment variables, a CloudWatch log group with 90-day retention, least-privilege IAM, VPC placement in private subnets, a dead-letter queue, and AWS X-Ray tracing—all automatically.

Where it works:

This persistent context approach applies across both tools and all infrastructure generation workflows:

• Amazon Q Developer IDE Plugin: Rules in .amazonq/rules/ apply automatically to every code generation and review interaction.
• Kiro: Steering files provide the agent with continuous architectural and security awareness across sessions and projects.

The shift-left impact:

This approach isn’t a replacement for your existing continuous integration and delivery (CI/CD) security automation. It’s a powerful complement to it, and that distinction matters. By embedding security standards directly into the development workflow, you shift security validation further left than pipeline checks can reach. Developers across your organization, not just security specialists, can generate infrastructure that meets your security standards from the first line of code. This scales security expertise into non-security roles, empowers development teams to self-serve on compliance requirements, and reduces the volume of findings that ever reach your automated pipeline checks.

The result is security functioning as an enabler of faster development rather than a gate that slows it down, and security engineers spending their time on policy design and complex risk decisions rather than remediating avoidable misconfigurations.

Measurable impact:

Track these metrics to quantify the value of persistent context:

• Security findings during code review: Establish a 30–60 day baseline before enabling context files, then compare
• Time from development to deployment: Track average cycle time before and after
• Remediation cost: Research consistently shows defects fixed in development cost significantly less than those fixed in production. Track your own ratio for 60 days
• Standards consistency: Audit a random sample of infrastructure pull requests for compliance with your top 10 policies

Implementation recommendation: Start by codifying your top 10 most frequently violated security policies as context. Measure the reduction in these specific findings over 30–60 days to quantify the impact on your team.

AWS Security Hub consolidates findings from services such as Amazon GuardDuty, AWS Config, Amazon Inspector, and third-party security tools into a single dashboard, providing centralized security finding visibility and built-in triage capabilities across your AWS environment. AWS Security Hub Extended will bring even more capabilities into this mix, giving customers expanded control and additional opportunities to leverage the AI-assisted workflows described in this post at greater scale and with deeper integration across your security toolchain.

Kiro can complement Security Hub by helping you correlate findings across accounts, understand CVE context, and develop remediation approaches, including:

• Query findings using natural language across multiple AWS accounts and AWS Regions
• Understand specific CVEs and their potential impact on your infrastructure
• Generate investigation queries for AWS CloudTrail and Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (Amazon VPC) Flow Logs
• Correlate security events across different time periods and services
• Access the latest AWS security documentation and best practices

How it works – Model Context Protocols:

To enable these capabilities, Kiro uses Model Context Protocols (MCPs)—a standardized way for AI assistants to securely connect with external tools, services, and data sources, enabling them to take actions, retrieve real-time information, and interact with APIs beyond their built-in capabilities.

Open source MCP servers for AWS are a suite of specialized MCP servers that enable Kiro to interact with AWS security services, providing real-time visibility into your security posture. To get started, configure security-focused MCP servers in your Kiro settings file (as shown in the following example). For full instructions on configuring MCP servers in Kiro, see the Kiro MCP documentation.

Note on authentication: Before querying Security Hub, verify you have configured valid AWS credentials for the target account. Set the AWS_PROFILE value to a named profile in your ~/.aws/credentials file that has the appropriate permissions, or configure credentials using the AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) (aws configure). Without valid credentials for the target account, Kiro will not be able to retrieve findings.

{
    "mcpServers": {
        "awslabs.aws-api-mcp-server": {
            "command": "uvx",
            "args": ["awslabs.aws-api-mcp-server@latest"],
            "env": {
                "FASTMCP_LOG_LEVEL": "ERROR",
                "AWS_PROFILE": "<PROFILE>",
                "AWS_REGION": "us-east-1"
            },
            "timeout": 120000,
            "disabled": false
        },
        "awslabs.cloudtrail-mcp-server": {
            "command": "uvx",
            "args": ["awslabs.cloudtrail-mcp-server@latest"],
            "env": {
                "FASTMCP_LOG_LEVEL": "ERROR",
                "AWS_PROFILE": "<PROFILE>"
            },
            "disabled": false
        },
        "awslabs.iam-mcp-server": {
            "command": "uvx",
            "args": ["awslabs.iam-mcp-server@latest"],
            "env": {
                "FASTMCP_LOG_LEVEL": "ERROR",
                "AWS_PROFILE": "<PROFILE>"
            },
            "disabled": false
        }
    }
}

Configure the following security-focused MCP servers to get started:

• AWS API MCP Server: Interact with Security Hub, GuardDuty, IAM Access Analyzer, and AWS Config through AWS CLI commands
• CloudTrail MCP Server: Audit trail analysis and compliance monitoring
• AWS IAM MCP Server: Manage IAM users, roles, policies, and permissions
• AWS Knowledge MCP Server: Access up-to-date AWS security documentation and best practices

For a full list of available MCP servers, see the awslabs/mcp GitHub repository.

Example: querying Security Hub with Kiro:

1. Open your terminal or Kiro IDE.
2. Enter the following command:

"Show me all critical security findings from Security Hub in my production account ID <ACCOUNT ID>"

Example output:

> Found 4 critical security findings in account 123456789012:

## Configuration Issues (2)

1. SSM.7 - SSM documents block public sharing disabled
- Status: FAILED (since July 17, 2025)
- Impact: Systems Manager documents can be publicly shared
- Remediation: Enable block public sharing setting for SSM documents
- [Documentation](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/console/securityhub/SSM.7/remediation)

2. Config.1 - AWS Config not properly configured
- Status: FAILED (since March 4, 2025)
- Issue: Config isn't recording required IAM resource types (User, Role, Group, Policy)
- Standards affected: CIS, NIST 800-53, PCI DSS, AWS Foundational Security
- Remediation: Enable recording for IAM resources in AWS Config
- [Documentation](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/console/securityhub/Config.1/remediation)

## Vulnerabilities (2)

3. CVE-2020-36242 in Lambda function: MyLambdaOne
- Package: cryptography version 3.2.1
- CVSS Score: 9.1 (Critical)
- Issue: Integer/buffer overflow in Fernet encryption class
- Fix: Upgrade to cryptography 3.3.2
- Function: SPC-1233HH5R-MyLambdaOne-lUh3ESH0MdXF

4. CVE-2020-36242 in Lambda function: AutoUpdateMyLambdaOne
- Package: cryptography version 3.2.1
- CVSS Score: 9.1 (Critical)
- Same vulnerability as above
- Function: SPC-1233HH5R-AutoUpdateMyLambdaOne-d9HIBfxThbFW

Real-world impact:
Security finding triage that previously required navigating multiple consoles, correlating logs manually, and researching CVE databases can be accelerated significantly. Teams that have integrated AI-assisted triage into their Security Hub workflows report reducing mean time to triage for critical findings from hours to minutes, enabling faster containment and more consistent coverage across accounts.

AI assistants can scan your infrastructure code and flag security issues with specific fix recommendations. However, implementing these changes requires careful review, testing, and validation before any changes reach production.

Important: AI-generated remediation suggestions must be reviewed by a qualified security engineer before implementation. Automated application of AI-generated changes without human validation can introduce unintended misconfigurations or service disruptions. Treat AI output as a starting point, not a finished product.

The workflow:
You can execute this workflow in either Kiro or Amazon Q Developer, depending on which tool fits your existing development environment:

1. Ask Kiro or Amazon Q Developer to scan your infrastructure files and identify security gaps.
2. Review AI-generated remediation suggestions with your security team.
3. Test changes in non-production environments.
4. Validate using AWS security services such as IAM Access Analyzer, AWS Config, and Security Hub.
5. Deploy to production with monitoring and rollback procedures in place.

Example prompt:

"Scan my infrastructure at /path/to/templates, identify all S3 buckets without encryption, enable AES-256 encryption, add bucket policies to deny unencrypted uploads, and provide the deployment command"

What happens:

The AI assistant analyzes your infrastructure files, whether written in AWS CloudFormation, Terraform , or AWS Cloud Development Kit (AWS CDK), and identifies resources that violate security best practices. It then implements controls such as encryption at rest using AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) or Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3)-managed keys, adds bucket policies enforcing encryption in transit, configures public access blocks, and generates the exact deployment command with a change preview so you can review what will be modified before anything is applied.

Based on the example security standards context file above, the following controls would be applied across all generated infrastructure: encryption at rest and in transit, least-privilege IAM policies, security group optimizations, VPC configurations, logging enablement, and backup and recovery settings.

Validation required:
AI-generated configurations deserve the same thoughtful review as other infrastructure code. Even a policy that looks correct on the surface might need tuning to match your organization’s least-privilege standards, or encryption settings might need adjusting to satisfy specific compliance requirements. Running those changes through a non-production environment and having a human confirm the results before anything reaches production are part of good infrastructure practices, whether the code was written by a person or generated by AI.

Real-world impact:

Identifying non-compliant resources across multiple accounts manually can take many hours and generating remediation templates for each resource can add significant time. Security teams that have adopted AI-assisted infrastructure scanning report spending less time on manual identification and template generation, and with AI assistance the same identification and drafting work can be completed in much less time. Customers report that a full remediation cycle that previously occupied their team for the better part of a day can be completed in under an hour when AI handles the scanning and template generation. It is worth noting that manual remediation time grows considerably at scale, as remediating dozens of non-compliant resources is not a linear exercise. Validation time in non-production environments remains essential regardless of how the remediation was generated, and should always be factored into your planning.

Amazon Q Developer and Kiro can analyze your infrastructure code and identify potential security issues across multiple categories aligned with the AWS Well-Architected Framework Security Pillar.

Using Amazon Q Developer:

1. Open your infrastructure file in your IDE.
2. Select the code you want to review.
3. Open the context menu and choose Send to Amazon Q, then choose Optimize.
4. Select Focus on security best practices.

Using Kiro:

1. Open your infrastructure file in Kiro.
2. Enter a natural language prompt such as: Perform a comprehensive security review of this CloudFormation template and identify all deviations from our standards.
3. Kiro will automatically apply your steering files as additional context when generating its response.
4. Review the findings and iterate with follow-up prompts.

Security categories evaluated: For the complete, up-to-date list of security categories and controls, see the AWS Well-Architected Framework Security Pillar documentation. Current categories include but are not limited to:

• Identity and access management: Overly permissive IAM policies, missing multi-factor authentication (MFA) requirements, unused credentials and access keys, cross-account access risks
• Detective controls: CloudTrail logging configuration, Amazon CloudWatch alarm coverage, GuardDuty enablement status, and AWS Config rule implementation
• Infrastructure protection: Security group misconfigurations, public subnet exposure, missing AWS WAF rules, unencrypted network traffic
• Data protection: Storage encryption status, KMS key rotation policies, backup configurations, S3 bucket access controls
• Incident response: Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) alerting setup, log retention policies, automated response mechanisms

Example output:

Security Recommendations:
- Enable S3 bucket encryption with KMS: Critical
- Implement least privilege IAM policies: High
- Enable GuardDuty threat detection: High
- Configure VPC Flow Logs: Medium
- Add WAF rules for API Gateway: Medium
- Enable CloudTrail in all regions: Critical
- Implement automated backup policies: High

Total security improvements: 23 findings across 5 Well-Architected pillars

Keeping your configuration files current:

A security architect review remains valuable for keeping your steering files and rules documents complete and current. The goal is an AI assistant that already understands your environment, not one that needs correcting after every interaction. Treat your configuration files as living documents and update them when your security standards evolve, when new services are adopted, or when post-incident reviews reveal gaps. As this post notes, project rules reduce architectural drift and help maintain consistency as AI agents operate more autonomously.

Real-world impact:

Security reviews that previously required a security engineer to manually inspect infrastructure templates line by line can be completed in significantly less time with AI assistance. Teams using AI-assisted security reviews as a pre-commit gate—before code reaches CI/CD pipeline checks—report catching a meaningful portion of security findings earlier in the development cycle where they are faster and less costly to address. Integrating this review step into pull request workflows means security validation happens continuously rather than only at deployment gates.

You can use AWS Organizations Service Control Policies (SCPs) to apply preventive controls consistently across every account in your organization, enforcing security baselines without relying on individual account administrators. Kiro can generate initial SCP drafts from natural language security requirements, speeding up the drafting and iteration process considerably. Because SCPs are preventive controls that can’t be bypassed by administrators, misconfigurations can cause organization-wide service disruptions, making expert validation and staged testing essential before any SCP reaches production.

Step 1: Generate an SCP draft:

Describe your security requirements in natural language:

"Create an SCP with these security controls:
- Deny creation of S3 buckets without encryption
- Require MFA for IAM user console access
- Prevent public RDS snapshots
- Deny security group rules allowing 0.0.0.0/0 on sensitive ports
- Enforce encryption for all EBS volumes
- Require VPC Flow Logs on all VPCs
- Deny IAM policy creation without approval tags
- Restrict resource creation to approved regions only"

Kiro generates a complete SCP policy JSON with proper deny statements, condition keys for MFA and encryption enforcement, resource-level restrictions, and regional compliance requirements.

Step 2: Validate and lint the SCP:

Use Kiro or Amazon Q Developer to assist with policy linting and initial testing as a first layer of validation. IAM Policy Autopilot, available as a Kiro Power with one-click installation directly from the Kiro IDE, can analyze your application’s usage and generate necessary permissions based on the SDK calls it discovers. IAM Policy Autopilot also integrates as an MCP server with Kiro, Amazon Q Developer, and other MCP-compatible coding assistants, making it a natural part of your existing workflow rather than a separate tool.

"Review this SCP JSON for syntax errors, overly broad deny statements, and missing condition keys. Flag any statements that could unintentionally block legitimate operations."

The IAM Policy Simulator then adds another layer of validation on top of the AI-assisted linting, so you can test policy behavior, verify condition keys are correctly applied, and confirm that no legitimate operations are unintentionally blocked. IAM Policy Autopilot complements existing IAM tools such as IAM Access Analyzer by providing functional policies as a starting point, which you can then validate using IAM Access Analyzer policy validation or refine over time with unused access analysis. Together, these tools form a layered validation approach where each one strengthens the output of the previous step.

Step 3: Test in a sandbox environment:

Create a test organizational unit (OU) with non-production accounts and apply the SCP to the test OU. Attempt operations that should be blocked and confirm that no legitimate operations are unintentionally blocked. Use Kiro to pre-validate your infrastructure code against the proposed SCP before sandbox testing:

"Analyze my current infrastructure against this proposed SCP and identify resources that would be non-compliant"

This scan covers your infrastructure code files. For live account scanning across your organization, use the following AWS services:

• AWS Config with the Config Aggregator and Conformance Packs for continuous compliance monitoring across your organization.
• IAM Access Analyzer for automated reasoning-based analysis of external access, internal access, and unused permissions.
• Account Assessment for AWS Organizations for bulk scanning of identity-based, resource-based, and service control policies across all accounts.
• Security Hub for centralized aggregation of compliance findings and security scores across your entire organization.

Step 4: Security architect review:

Engage your security architects to identify potential risks and verify the policy aligns with your security framework. Check for conflicts with existing SCPs by reviewing all SCPs attached to parent OUs and the root in the AWS Organizations console. Use the IAM Policy Simulator to test interactions between policies and verify that emergency access procedures ( SEC03-BP03 Establish emergency access process – Security Pillar and SEC10-BP05 Pre-provision access – Security Pillar) remain functional before any production rollout.

Step 5: Staged rollout:

Deploy to development accounts first and monitor for policy violations and operational issues. Gradually expand to additional environments and maintain documented rollback procedures throughout the process.

Important: It’s strongly recommended not to deploy AI-generated SCPs directly to production without thorough expert review and staged testing. A misconfigured SCP can cause organization-wide service disruptions affecting every account in your organization.

Real-world impact:

SCP drafting that previously required security architects to write and iterate on complex JSON policy documents manually, often spanning multiple review cycles over several days, can be condensed when AI handles the initial drafting and linting. Your architects can then focus their time on policy design, edge case analysis, and organizational impact assessment rather than JSON syntax and structure.

Adopting AI-assisted security workflows is most effective when introduced gradually, with clear validation gates at each stage. The following two-phase approach gives your team time to build confidence, measure results, and establish the internal practices needed before expanding to production environments.

• Phase 1: Development and testing (weeks 1–4): Start by testing AI-generated security controls in isolated development accounts. Validate functionality, identify edge cases, and deploy to a dedicated testing environment with thorough security validation. Use IAM Access Analyzer, AWS Config, and Security Hub to verify that generated controls behave as expected. This phase is also the right time to build internal expertise across both your security team and your development teams, so that knowledge of what works and what requires human review is shared broadly from the start.
• Phase 2: Staging and production (week 5 and later): Apply the validated controls to a staging environment that mirrors production. Conduct penetration testing where appropriate and validate that monitoring and alerting function correctly before expanding further. Gradually roll out to production accounts with continuous monitoring in place. Maintain rollback procedures throughout and establish feedback loops so that lessons learned in production flow back into your steering files, rules documents, and validation processes over time.

What distinguishes the approach in this post from general guidance on AI coding assistants is the specificity of the security integration. There’s no shortage of content about how AI assistants accelerate development. What this post focuses on is how to configure both Kiro and Amazon Q Developer to perform security-specific tasks: triaging findings from Security Hub, remediating infrastructure code vulnerabilities against your organization’s defined standards, conducting Well-Architected security reviews, drafting and validating SCPs, and generating secure-by-default infrastructure through persistent context that reflects your environment rather than generic defaults.

Kiro is an agentic IDE that helps you go from prototype to production with spec-driven development, and its steering files give the agent persistent awareness of your security standards across every session. Amazon Q Developer complements this by providing deep integration into your existing AWS environment and IDE workflows. Together, these tools extend your security team’s reach into every stage of the development lifecycle, scale security expertise into development teams, and reduce the gap between when vulnerabilities are introduced and when they are caught. As the AWS Well-Architected Framework Security Pillar establishes, embedding security early and consistently across the development process is foundational to a strong security posture.

These five techniques aren’t about replacing your security controls. They’re about making security a natural part of how your teams build on AWS, regardless of whether they’re security specialists or application developers. In addition to the five techniques covered in this post, the following AWS capabilities complement this approach and are worth exploring for a more complete picture:

• Amazon Inspector is a vulnerability management service that continually scans AWS workloads for software vulnerabilities, code vulnerabilities, and unintended network exposure. It automatically discovers and scans Amazon EC2 instances, container images in Amazon ECR, AWS Lambda functions, and first-party code repositories. Amazon Inspector integrates directly into CI/CD pipelines through plugins for Jenkins, TeamCity, GitHub Actions, and Amazon CodeCatalyst, which teams can use to catch vulnerabilities before deployment. Its code security capabilities include Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Software Composition Analysis (SCA), and infrastructure as code (IaC) scanning, with native integration to GitHub and GitLab. All findings are surfaced directly in Security Hub for centralized visibility and response across your organization.
• Amazon Q Developer security scanning provides real-time security issue detection in the IDE, including SAST scanning for security vulnerabilities, secrets detection, IaC security evaluation, and software composition analysis for third-party dependencies. These capabilities are available across JetBrains, Visual Studio Code, and Visual Studio.
• Kiro Powers are curated and pre-packaged MCP servers, steering files, and hooks validated by Kiro partners to accelerate specialized development and deployment use cases. Security-relevant Kiro Powers include the IAM Policy Autopilot Kiro Power for baseline IAM policy generation and the real-time coding security validation MCP server pattern for Kiro.
• AWS Security Agent is a frontier AI agent that proactively secures your applications throughout the development lifecycle. Security teams define organizational security requirements once in the AWS Security Agent console, such as approved encryption libraries, authentication frameworks, and logging standards, and AWS Security Agent then automatically validates these requirements throughout development by evaluating architectural documents and code against your defined standards. It provides three core capabilities: design security review for architecture documents, code security review that automatically analyzes pull requests against your defined standards across connected repositories, and on-demand penetration testing that discovers, validates, and reports vulnerabilities through sophisticated multi-step attack scenarios customized for each application. When vulnerabilities are found, AWS Security Agent creates pull requests with ready-to-implement fixes directly in your code repository. Customers report that AWS Security Agent compresses penetration testing timelines from weeks to hours, transforming penetration testing from a periodic bottleneck into an on-demand capability that reduces risk exposure and scales security reviews to match development velocity.
• AWS Security Hub automated response and remediation provides pre-built playbooks for common findings using AWS Systems Manager Automation, enabling your team to act on findings faster and more consistently.

If you’re new to AI-assisted security workflows, the following week-by-week approach gives your team a practical path forward without overextending before the foundation is in place.

• Weeks 1 and 2: Set up your persistent context files with your top 10 security policies as described in the foundational setup section above. Configure MCP servers in Kiro for Security Hub and CloudTrail access and verify that credentials are correctly configured for your target accounts.
• Weeks 3 and 4: Run your first AI-assisted security review on a non-production infrastructure template. Compare the findings against your last manual review to establish a baseline for measuring impact over time.
• Weeks 5 and 6: pilot AI-assisted SCP drafting for one new preventive control. Run the full validation workflow including AI-assisted linting, IAM Policy Autopilot, and the IAM Policy Simulator before any production application.
• From that point forward: Measure the metrics outlined in the foundational setup section, update your steering files and rules documents as your standards evolve, and share findings across your security team, development teams, and platform engineering teams. The knowledge of what works and what requires human judgment is valuable to everyone who touches infrastructure in your organization.

Kiro and Amazon Q Developer give security teams practical tools to accelerate threat response and maintain consistent security coverage by handling the tasks that consume the most time with the least strategic value: scanning for known misconfigurations, drafting policy JSON, researching CVEs, and generating secure infrastructure. These AI assistants are most effective when paired with security engineers, as they accelerate assessments and code generation while human review, policy design, and risk judgment remain essential throughout.

By implementing the five techniques outlined in this post, starting with embedding security best practices through persistent context and then applying that foundation to Security Hub finding triage, infrastructure code remediation, in-depth Well-Architected security reviews, and SCP development, your team can strengthen your AWS security posture while maintaining the standards your organization requires.

AWS services such as Security Hub, IAM Access Analyzer, AWS Config, and CloudTrail provide the foundation for these AI-assisted workflows, enabling centralized visibility and automated validation of security controls across your environment. Emergency access procedures should be established and validated before deploying any preventive controls such as SCPs, following the break-glass guidance in the AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar and the AWS Prescriptive Guidance for break-glass access.

Start small with non-production environments, establish clear validation processes, measure results, and gradually expand your use of AI assistants as your team builds expertise and confidence. The result is faster threat response, more consistent security coverage, and security engineers focused on complex decisions rather than repetitive tasks.

• AWS Well-Architected Framework Security Pillar – Foundational security best practices across the five pillars of the Well-Architected Framework
• AWS Security Hub Best Practices – Vulnerability management guidance
• AWS Security Incident Response ITSM Integrations – Open source integrations for Jira and ServiceNow with AWS Security Incident Response, with guidance on using Kiro and Amazon Q Developer for rapid customization
• AWS Security Blog – Latest security guidance, customer stories, and announcements from the AWS security team

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below

April 27, 2026: This post was first published in September 2025 when the enhanced AWS Security Hub was in public preview. It has since been updated to reflect the general availability of Security Hub. This revision also provides a more detailed, step-by-step framework for planning your POC.

AWS Security Hub prioritizes your critical security issues and helps you respond at scale to protect your environment. The service sharpens findings through aggregation, correlation, and enrichment of AWS native security signals into actionable insights, enabling faster and more efficient response times. You can use these capabilities to gain visibility across your cloud environment through centralized management in a unified cloud security solution. Security Hub creates a cloud-native application protection platform (CNAPP) and through the AWS free trial, you can create a comprehensive proof of concept (POC) evaluation without significant upfront investment in time or resources.

In this blog post, we guide you through planning and implementation POC for Security Hub to assess the implementation, functionality, cost estimate, and value of Security Hub in your environment. We walk you through the following steps:

1. Understand the value of Security Hub
2. Determine success criteria for the POC
3. Define Security Hub configuration
4. Prepare for deployment
5. Enable Security Hub
6. Validate deployment

Figure 1: AWS Security Hub overview

Figure 1 provides a visualization of how Security Hub unifies signals from multiple AWS security services, partner solutions capabilities. The signals, which are ingested by Security Hub from multiple AWS security services and curated partner solutions include:

• Threats: Amazon GuardDuty findings
• Vulnerabilities: Amazon Inspector vulnerability findings
• Controls: AWS Security Hub CSPM findings
• Configurations: Resource inventory
• Network exposures: Amazon Inspector network reachability findings
• Sensitive data: Amazon Macie findings
• Extended Plan: Curated partner solutions

At its core, Security Hub provides four key capabilities in one unified solution:

1. Unified security operations: Security Hub delivers a unified security operations experience, bringing your security signals into a single consolidated view and avoiding the need to switch between multiple security tools. This provides comprehensive visibility across your entire estate, including AWS, multi-cloud, and on-premises, so your security teams can efficiently detect, prioritize, and respond to potential security risks.
2. Intelligent prioritization helps focus on what matters most: Security Hub helps you identify and prioritize critical security risks that might be missed when viewing findings in isolation. Security findings are correlated by analyzing resource relationships and signals from AWS security services and capabilities.
3. Actionable insights guide security teams on next steps: Gain actionable insights through advanced analytics to transform correlated findings into clear, prioritized insights that highlight the most critical security risks in your environment. You can quickly understand potential impacts, visualize relationships, and identify which security issues pose the greatest risk to critical resources.
4. Streamlined security response and automation capabilities: Security Hub enhances your security operations by enabling streamlined response capabilities. It seamlessly integrates with your existing ticketing systems to help facilitate efficient incident management.

With this integrated approach your security team can:

• Investigate critical risks that need immediate attention from a single pane of glass
• Monitor security trends and attack surface across your environments
• Fix what really matters across the entire attack chain and path
• Automate responses to streamline remediation

Understand the Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework

Security Hub uses the Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework (OCSF) to help standardize security data and analysis and enable better integration between security tools. This standardization helps simplify how security findings are structured and analyzed across your environment. This standardized data model enables seamless integration and data exchange across your security tooling, providing normalized and consistent data formats. When implementing your Security Hub POC, make sure that you’re familiar with the OCSF specifications Security Hub uses.

Additionally, confirm that any analytics or security information and event management (SIEM) tools you plan to integrate with support the OCSF data format to maximize the value of the consolidated security insights provided by Security Hub.

Establishing success criteria helps benchmark the outcomes of the POC with the goals of the business. Some example criteria and key performance indicators (KPI) include:

• Alert consolidation metrics: Determine what resources you’re currently using to correlate security events and signals to understand their relationship. Review the process and note if it’s completed outside of AWS or through a SIEM. By setting a benchmark to reduce correlation overhead you can significantly improve efficiency and accelerate security investigations and posture improvement.
• Response time improvements: Reducing your time to detect, investigate, and resolve security events and improve security posture is essential to streamlined security operations. Security Hub provides visualizations for potential attack paths that adversaries could use to exploit resources and helps assess the potential blast radius.
  • Reduced mean time to detect (MTTD) security incidents.
  • Reduced mean time to response (MTTR) for critical findings.
  • Reduced time to identify potentially affected resources in blast radius.
  • Increased accuracy of attack path analysis.
  • Number of controls implemented based on attack path insights (post investigation).
• Automation capabilities: Having response playbooks as part of your incident management and response plan helps ensure comprehensive investigations lead to improved security posture. Review your automation capabilities to see if portions of or entire playbooks can be automated.
  • Potentially increased percentage of security findings automatically routed to the correct teams by using Jira Cloud, ServiceNow, or a third-party tool.
  • Reduced average time from detection to ticket creation.
• Severity and risk classification: Review your organization’s inventory of assets to determine if it’s complete and if you can use telemetry to determine the severity level and associated risks.
  • Reduced time to identify critical resources and service coverage gaps affected by new vulnerabilities, threats, and misconfigurations.
  • Faster and more accurate severity label and risk calculation of findings.
  • Reduced time to identify service gap coverage.

After establishing your success criteria, it’s essential to evaluate organizational readiness and potential constraints that might impact your POC implementation. Begin by conducting a comprehensive assessment of your current environment: Determine if the foundational security services (GuardDuty, Amazon Inspector, Security Hub CSPM, and Macie) are enabled across your accounts, and identify your critical workloads and if there are any excessive attack surfaces.

Review your success criteria to make sure that your goals are realistic given your timeframe and potential constraints that are specific to your organization. For example:

• Do you have full control over the configuration of AWS services that are deployed in an organization?
• Do you have resources that can dedicate time to implement and test?
• Is this time convenient for relevant stakeholders to evaluate the service?

To get the most comprehensive evaluation of the capabilities of Security Hub, coordinate the activation of underlying security services to optimize the overlapping trial periods available at no additional cost. The following is a list of the underlying security services, and their free trial length:

• Security Hub: 30-day trial (essential plan capabilities)
• GuardDuty: 30-day trial (covers most protection plans except GuardDuty Malware Protection)
• Security Hub CSPM: 30-day trial
• Macie: 30-day trial
• Amazon Inspector: 15-day trial

Consider enabling these services simultaneously so that you have at least two weeks of overlapping coverage to evaluate the full correlation and risk prioritization capabilities of Security Hub across each service. Optionally, if you want to conduct a POC with minimal configuration because of limitations, you can enable only Security Hub CSPM and Amazon Inspector during the initial POC phase to properly assess the results and data.

Note: Document your activation dates and trial expiration dates carefully. Create calendar reminders for trial end dates and schedule your key POC evaluation milestones to occur while services are active. This will help make sure that you can thoroughly assess the unified security operations capabilities of Security Hub when services are running at full capacity.

If you already have one or more of these underlying services enabled, you can proceed to enable the new Security Hub. To fully use the new Security Hub capabilities, particularly the exposure findings feature, specific service dependencies must be met, both Security Hub CSPM and Amazon Inspector are essential because they provide the telemetry needed for the Security Hub correlation engine and exposure findings. The combination enables Security Hub to deliver comprehensive risk analysis and prioritization by correlating configuration risks with runtime vulnerabilities. If you have other security services already enabled (such as GuardDuty or Macie), you can maintain these existing services while enabling Security Hub, and it will automatically begin incorporating their findings into its consolidated view, enhancing your overall security posture visualization.

After your success criteria have been established, you’re ready to plan your configuration. Some important decisions include:

• Select a delegated administrator: From the AWS Organizations management account, you can set a delegated administrator for your organization. As a best practice, we recommend using the same delegated administrator across security services for consistent governance and according to our AWS Security Reference Architecture (AWS SRA).
• Select accounts in scope: Define accounts you want to have Security Hub enabled for.
• Define AWS Regions: Determine Regional restrictions or considerations.
• Determine AWS service integrations: In addition to the core security capabilities of posture management and vulnerability management, Security Hub integrates signals from other AWS security services such as GuardDuty and Macie.
• Define third-party integrations:
  • For ticketing, Security Hub integrates with popular service management systems such as Atlassian’s Jira Service Management Cloud and ServiceNow.
  • Partners who already support or intend to support the OCSF schema to receive findings from Security Hub include companies such as Arctic Wolf, CrowdStrike, DataBee, Datadog, DTEX Systems, Dynatrace, Fortinet, IBM, Netskope, Orca Security, Palo Alto Neworks, Rapid7, Securonix, SentinelOne, Sophos, Splunk, Sumo Logic, Tines, Trellix, Wiz, and Zscaler.
  • Service partners such as Accenture, Caylent, Deloitte, IBM, and Optiv can help you adopt Security Hub and the OCSF schema.
• Use the Security Hub cost estimator: Use the Security Hub Cost Estimation Tool for a pre-enablement cost estimate based on your current spend on Amazon Inspector, Security Hub CSPM, and GuardDuty.

After determining your success criteria and Security Hub configuration, identify stakeholders, desired state, and timeframe. Prepare for deployment by completing:

• Project plan and timeline: Develop a project plan with defined success criteria, scope boundaries, key milestones, and realistic implementation timelines. Suggested timeline of events:
  • Before enablement:
    • Validate core security service configuration for GuardDuty, Amazon Inspector, Security Hub CSPM, and Macie
    • Request approvals for free trial from appropriate stakeholders
  • Day 0 – Enable the service, become comfortable with the Security Hub layout and begin training security personnel
  • Week 1 – Validate desired coverage of threat detection, vulnerability management, and posture management across accounts and Regions
  • Week 2 – Connect to IT service management (ITSM) tools and begin creating automations for critical workloads and resources
  • Week 3 – Execute a tabletop exercise in response to a selected exposure finding
  • Week 4 – Analyze trends of threats and exposures from day 1 through week 4
• Identify stakeholders: Identify CISO, information security teams, SOC personnel, incident response teams, security engineers, finance, legal, compliance, external MSSPs, and business unit representatives.
• Develop a RACI matric: Create a detailed RACI chart defining roles and responsibilities across the incident response lifecycle, facilitating accountability and proper communication channels.
• Configure management account access: Secure authorization to delegate administrative access. For more information, see Permissions required to designate a delegated Security Hub administrator account.
• Set up IAM roles and permissions: Use AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) roles to implement role-based access controls aligned with the RACI chart, including case management, escalation, and read-only roles using AWS managed policies. For more information, see AWS Managed Policies

AWS security services integrate with AWS Organizations to help you centrally manage Security Hub.

1. If you haven’t already done so, enable Security Hub CSPM and Amazon Inspector at a minimum. Also enable any other AWS security services that you want to integrate with Security Hub.
2. Enable Security Hub for your organization from the organization management account.
3. If setting a delegated administrator for Security Hub, see Setting a delegated administrator account in Security Hub from the management account.
   

   Note: As a best practice, we recommend using the same delegated administrator across security services for consistent governance.

4. Sign in to the delegated administrator with an IAM policy that gives you permission to enable and disable member accounts. With this policy, you will have granular control to decide what Regions you want enabled.
5. Configure Security Hub plans for deployment. Security Hub comes with the Essentials, Threat Analytics, and Extended plans.
6. Configure third-party integrations to create incidents or issues for Security Hub findings.

Note: After you enable Security Hub, exposure findings in your environment are created and analyzed immediately. However, it can take up to 6 hours to receive an exposure finding for a resource.

The final step is to confirm that Security Hub is configured correctly and to evaluate the solution against your success criteria.

• Validate policy: Verify that you have the correct permissions to manage member accounts and Regional restrictions are configured correctly.
• Validate integrations: Verify that tickets with ServiceNow or Jira Cloud are working correctly by signing in to the AWS Management Console for Security hub and choosing Inventory in the navigation pane. Select Findings and verify there is a ticket ID in your finding.
• Assess success criteria: Determine if you achieved the success criteria that you defined at the beginning of the project.

In this post, we showed you how to plan and implement an effective Security Hub POC. You learned how to do so through phases, including defining success criteria, configuring Security Hub, and validating that Security Hub meets your business needs. Take advantage of the trial periods to maximize your testing window without incurring significant costs. Throughout the POC, maintain focus on your predefined success criteria while remaining open to unexpected benefits or challenges that might arise. Maintain open communication with your AWS account team to address any questions or concerns to help you get the most out of your Security Hub POC experience.

• AWS Security Hub User Guide
• How to prioritize security risks using AWS Security Hub
• How to onboard to AWS Security Hub
• Streamline security response at scale with AWS Security Hub automation

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this post, contact AWS Support.

Understanding what AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies can control helps you build better security controls and avoid spending time on approaches that won’t work. You’ve likely encountered questions like:

• Can I use AWS Organizations service control policies (SCPs) to prevent the creation of security groups that allow traffic from 0.0.0.0/0?
• Can I block uploads unless objects are encrypted?
• Can I prevent functions with more than 512 MB of memory allocated?

Some of these are possible with IAM policies. Others are not. The difference is determined by a fundamental principle of AWS authorization: Policies make decisions based on information available in the authorization context at the time of the API call.

In this blog post, you learn how to use the AWS Service Authorization Reference to determine what’s achievable with IAM policies, recognize scenarios that need alternative solutions, and build more effective security controls in your AWS environment.

When you make an AWS API request through the AWS Management Console, AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI), or AWS SDK, the specific AWS service (such as Amazon S3 or Amazon EC2) receiving the request assembles a request context containing information about that request. This context is used for policy evaluation decisions. Request context is structured using the Principal, Action, Resource, Condition (PARC) model, which has four key components.

• Principal: Identifies the requester and their attributes (tags, session context)
• Action: Specifies the AWS API operation being requested (for example, s3:PutObject, ec2:RunInstances)
• Resource: Defines the target AWS resource using Amazon Resource Names (ARNs)
• Condition: Provides additional context available at request time, such as IP address, time, encryption parameters, MFA status, and service-specific attributes

The following example shows the typical request context for an Amazon S3 object upload:

• Principal: AIDA123456789EXAMPLE
• Action: s3:PutObject
• Resource: arn:aws:s3:::my-bucket/documents/samplereport.pdf
• Condition:
  • aws:PrincipalTag/Department=Finance
  • aws:RequestedRegion=us-east-1
  • aws:SourceIp=x.x.x.x
  • aws:MultiFactorAuthPresent=true
  • s3:x-amz-server-side-encryption=AES256
  • s3:x-amz-storage-class=STANDARD_IA

IAM policies can evaluate request metadata like encryption method and storage class being specified. However, it cannot evaluate the actual file contents, object size, or specific data patterns. Policy evaluation occurs at the time of the request, using the information present in the authorization context.

The Service Authorization Reference is the authoritative documentation for understanding what policies can control. For every AWS service, it documents:

• Actions: Every controllable operation
• Resources: Resource types that can be targeted
• Condition keys: The exact context information available for policy decisions

Condition keys are broadly divided into two categories. Global condition keys, which can be used across AWS services, and service-specific condition keys, which are defined for use with an individual AWS service. Use the Service Authorization Reference to find the global-condition keys or service-specific condition keys for each AWS service.

Follow these steps to determine if your requirement can be controlled with IAM policies:

1. Navigate to your service: Go to the page for the specific AWS service you’re working with, such as Actions, resources, and condition keys for Amazon S3.
2. Find the action you want: Find the API operation you want to control. Be precise, different actions have different available condition keys.
3. Examine available condition keys: The Condition keys column shows what context information AWS makes available for that action.
4. Make your feasibility determination: If the information you need isn’t listed as a condition key, you will not be able to control it with IAM policies alone.

Let’s take an example from the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) ec2:RunInstances action to see what you can and can’t control. In the Service Authorization Reference under the Amazon EC2 section, examine the RunInstances action and check the Resource types column. The RunInstances action affects multiple resource types, each with its own set of condition keys.

For the instance* resource type:

• ec2:InstanceType: Can restrict instance types
• ec2:EbsOptimized: Can require EBS optimization
• aws:RequestTag/: Can enforce tagging requirements

For the network-interface* resource type:

• ec2:Subnet: Can control subnet placement
• ec2:Vpc: Can limit to specific virtual private clouds (VPCs)
• ec2:AssociatePublicIpAddress: Can control public IP assignment

Note: These are a few examples from the many condition keys available for each resource type under the RunInstances action. The Service Authorization Reference lists dozens of condition keys across resource types (instance, network interface, security group, subnet, volume, and so on) that RunInstances affects. Consult the complete reference to see the available options for your specific use case.

Beyond the human-readable documentation, AWS provides the Service Authorization Reference in machine-readable JSON format to streamline automation of policy management workflows. Use this programmatic access to incorporate authorization metadata into your development and security workflows.
For detailed information about the JSON structure and field definitions, see the Simplified AWS service information for programmatic access.
Developers can use tools like the IAM MCP Server for AWS IAM operations. This server provides AI assistants with the ability to manage IAM users, roles, policies, and permissions while following security best practices.

The following examples show how you can use IAM policies to control specific scenarios.

In the Amazon S3 Service Authorization Reference, under s3:PutObject action, the s3:x-amz-server-side-encryption condition key is available in the authorization context, which can be used to control the server-side encryption of S3 objects with AES-256. Here is the required policy.

Policy 1: Deny Amazon S3 object upload if the encryption doesn’t use AES-256

{
	"Version": "2012-10-17",
	"Statement": [
		{
			"Sid": "DenyUnencryptedObjectUploads",
			"Effect": "Deny",
			"Action": "s3:PutObject",
			"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::my-bucket/*",
			"Condition": {
				"StringNotEquals": {
					"s3:x-amz-server-side-encryption": "AES256"
				}
			}
		}
	]
}

Policy 1 is a resource-based policy that can be applied on an S3 bucket to restrict object uploads. It denies a PutObject request when the server-side encryption isn’t using the AES-256 encryption algorithm.

When checking the Amazon EC2 Service Authorization Reference for ec2:RunInstances, the ec2:InstanceType condition key, which is resource specific, is available. To restrict instance types based on who is launching them (rather than just what is being launched), you can either combine this with a global condition key or attach different policies to different principals. By using aws:PrincipalTag/tag-key alongside ec2:InstanceType, you can identify the user’s cost center from their IAM identity tags and then apply different instance type restrictions accordingly. This allows a single policy to dynamically enforce different permissions based on the requester’s identity.

Policy 2: Restricting EC2 instance types by cost center

{
	"Version": "2012-10-17",
	"Statement": [
		{
			"Sid": "AllowDevInstanceTypes",
			"Effect": "Allow",
			"Action": "ec2:RunInstances",
			"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:*:*:instance/*",
			"Condition": {
				"StringEquals": {
					"aws:PrincipalTag/CostCenter": "Development"
				},
				"StringLike": {
					"ec2:InstanceType": "t3.*"
				}
			}
		},
		{
			"Sid": "AllowProdInstanceTypes",
			"Effect": "Allow",
			"Action": "ec2:RunInstances",
			"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:*:*:instance/*",
			"Condition": {
				"StringEquals": {
					"aws:PrincipalTag/CostCenter": "Production"
				},
				"StringLike": {
					"ec2:InstanceType": [
						"m5.*",
						"c5.*",
						"r5.*"
					]
				}
			}
		}
	]
}

This is an identity-based policy that you can attach to IAM users, groups, or roles to control EC2 instance launches based on cost allocation. In the first statement, aws:PrincipalTag, which is a global condition key (tags attached to the IAM user or role), is used to determine which instance types are allowed. Users tagged with CostCenter=Development can only launch cost-effective T3 instance types (t3.micro, t3.small, t3.medium, and so on)with the service specific key ec2:InstanceType.

In the second statement, users tagged with CostCenter=Production can launch more powerful instance types from the M5 (general purpose), C5 (compute optimized), and R5 (memory optimized) families. This approach lets organizations enforce cost controls and allocate resources based on workload requirements. Each cost center maintains flexibility for its specific needs.

Note: Additional resources are required in the IAM policy to successfully launch EC2 instances. For the complete list, see Launch Instances.

You have identified that GetItem, PutItem,and UpdateItem actions are required. Corresponding to these actions, you can use the condition key to expose partition key values in the authorization context as described in the Amazon DynamoDB Service Authorization Reference

Policy 3: DynamoDB fine-grained access control

{
	"Version": "2012-10-17",
	"Statement": [
		{
			"Effect": "Allow",
			"Action": [
				"dynamodb:GetItem",
				"dynamodb:PutItem",
				"dynamodb:UpdateItem"
			],
			"Resource": "arn:aws:dynamodb:us-east-1:111122223333:table/UserProfiles",
			"Condition": {
				"ForAllValues:StringEquals": {
					"dynamodb:LeadingKeys": ["${aws:username}"]
				}
			}
		}
	]
}

The policy allows users to perform read and write actions (GetItem, PutItem, and UpdateItem) on the UserProfiles table, but only for items where the partition key value equals their own username (using the ${aws:username} policy variable). For example, if user alice attempts to access an item with partition key bob, the request will be denied.

Some requirements can’t be met using IAM policies. Here are three common scenarios that aren’t achievable with IAM policies alone.

Upon checking the Amazon EC2 Service Authorization Reference, you will find that the ec2:AuthorizeSecurityGroupIngress action is required in an IAM policy to add an inbound access rules to a security group.

To verify this in the Service Authorization Reference, navigate to the Amazon EC2 Service Authorization Reference and search for the AuthorizeSecurityGroupIngress action, which is the action that creates security group rules. After you locate this action, review the Condition keys column and look for condition keys related to CIDR blocks, IP ranges, ports, or protocols. Available condition keys for ec2:AuthorizeSecurityGroupIngress include:

• aws:ResourceTag/${TagKey}: Filters access by a tag key and value pair of a resource
• ec2:ResourceTag/${TagKey}: Filters access by a tag key and value pair of a resource
• ec2:SecurityGroupID: Filters access by the ID of a security group
• ec2:Vpc: Filters access by the ARN of the VPC

Notice there are no condition keys for CIDR blocks (such as 0.0.0.0/0), port numbers (such as 22), or protocols (such as TCP). The authorization context doesn’t include information about the specific CIDR blocks, ports, or protocols being added to the security group rule, so IAM policies can’t control these attributes.

Solution
Take a reactive approach using the AWS Config managed rule INCOMING_SSH_DISABLED to detect overly permissive rules. You can also use a combination of Amazon EventBridge and Lambda to either send a notification to your security team for the non-compliant configuration or to restrict the security group through an automation. For more information, see How to Automatically Revert and Receive Notifications About Changes to Your Amazon VPC Security Groups.

Following the same verification methodology described in Scenario 1, navigate to the AWS Lambda Service Authorization Reference and examine the CreateFunction action’s condition keys for the function* resource type.

Available condition keys for lambda:CreateFunction with the function* resource type include:

• lambda:CodeSigningConfigArn: Filters access by the ARN of the code signing
• configuration-lambda:Layer: Filters access by the ARN of a version of an AWS Lambda layer
• lambda:VpcIds: Filters access by the ID of the VPC configured for the Lambda function

There is no condition key for memory allocation (MemorySize parameter), timeout settings, storage configuration (EphemeralStorage), or runtime selection. Because memory allocation isn’t exposed in the authorization context, IAM policies can’t restrict this parameter.

Solution

• Use a policy-as-code (PaC) approach with AWS CloudFormation Hooks. For more information, see A practical guide to getting started with policy as code.
• Use AWS Service Catalog to provide pre-approved Lambda configurations.
• Use LAMBDA_FUNCTION_SETTINGS_CHECK to apply an AWS Config rule to detect non-compliant functions.

Keep these principles in mind when working with IAM policies:

• Policies control what’s in the authorization context, not all elements you see in API documentation
• The Service Authorization Reference is authoritative; if something isn’t listed as a condition key, you can’t control it with policies
• Different actions have different available contexts even within the same service
• Alternative approaches exist. AWS Config, EventBridge, and service-specific controls can be used to achieve your goals when policies alone can’t
• Layered security is essential; combine preventive, detective, and responsive controls to help ensure that your data is secure

In this post, you learned how to use the AWS Service Authorization Reference to determine what’s achievable with IAM policies and recognize scenarios that require alternative solutions. By understanding that policies can only make decisions based on information available in the authorization context, you can build more effective security controls and avoid spending time on approaches that won’t work.

The Service Authorization Reference is your authoritative source for understanding policy capabilities. When you need to implement a control, start there to see if the required condition keys exist. If they don’t, you will need to layer in detective or responsive controls using services like AWS Config, Amazon EventBridge, or AWS Lambda.

Remember that effective AWS security isn’t about finding one perfect control, it’s about combining preventive, detective, and responsive measures to create defense in depth. IAM policies are powerful tools for prevention and work as part of a comprehensive security strategy.

Next steps:

• Explore IAM policy simulator to test and troubleshoot your policies
• Read IAM policy types: How and when to use them to understand when to use different policy types
• Watch the video on Understanding AWS IAM Policy Language: Elements, Evaluation, and Best Practices

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

Building on our recent announcement of AWS Security Hub Extended —our full-stack enterprise security offering — we want to show you how we’re simplifying security procurement and operations for your multicloud environments. Whether you’re a security architect evaluating solutions or a CISO looking to streamline vendor management, this post walks through the streamlined experience that transforms how you acquire, deploy, and manage end-to-end enterprise security solutions across endpoint, identity, email, network, data, browser, cloud, AI, and security operations. Security Hub Extended brings together AWS security services with carefully curated security partners. Delivering better outcomes together through unified procurement, billing, and operations that significantly reduce vendor management overhead so you can focus on what matters most: protecting your organization.

Security teams today spend too much time on vendor management, evaluating services, negotiating contracts, and managing multiple billing cycles instead of focusing on what matters most: managing risk. But the procurement challenge runs even deeper. Until now, customers really only had one option: sign multi-year agreements based solely on proof-of-concept testing and estimated annual usage. This forces organizations to commit budget before they can validate whether a solution will work for them at scale.

AWS Security Hub Extended transforms this procurement model. Security Hub Extended offers customers the option to get started with pay-as-you-go pricing and no commitments, so they can move fast and validate solutions in their actual environment. After they’ve confirmed a solution works at scale, they can then align their vendor strategy and sign longer-term commitments for even more favorable pricing.

Security Hub Extended provides a curated set of carefully chosen partner solutions with competitive pricing, unified billing through your AWS account, and seamless integration. Our initial launch partners, selected by customers for their proven value, include 7AI, Britive, CrowdStrike, Cyera, Island, Noma, Okta, Oligo, Opti, Proofpoint, SailPoint, Splunk, Upwind, and Zscaler.

AWS Security Hub consolidates threat analytics from Amazon GuardDuty, vulnerability management from Amazon Inspector, and sensitive data discovery from Amazon Macie, correlating these signals with Security Hub Exposure findings to determine overall risk, reachability, and assumability. Security Hub Extended builds on this foundation by adding curated partner solutions, extending these unified security operations across your entire organization including multicloud, on-premises, and endpoint environments. If you’re already using Security Hub, you can navigate directly to the Extended plan section.

Getting started with Security Hub is straightforward. From the AWS Management Console, search for Security Hub to start the onboarding walkthrough. If you’re not already a Security Hub customer, you can quickly complete onboarding by designating an AWS organization delegated administrator (DA) account. You can then centrally enable and manage Security Hub across your entire organization’s accounts and AWS Regions from a single location (see Introduction to AWS Security Hub). After you’ve onboarded, navigate to the Extended plan section to add curated partner solutions.

Figure 1: Security Hub centralized configuration

From this single interface, you can enable detection and response capabilities across your entire organization, provide granular configurations at the organizational unit or member account level, select specific Regions, and turn individual features on or off as needed.

The Security Hub risk correlation engine identifies potential exposures by correlating threats, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations to reveal how they connect and could lead to compromise of critical resources.

Figure 2: Security Hub exposure attack path visualization

The attack path visualization in the preceding figure reveals critical insights including upstream root causes and blast radius, showing the potential impact if a threat actor exploits a vulnerability. You can use this visualization to focus on fixing the root cause rather than addressing symptoms. For example, updating one security group configuration can eliminate the entire attack path, cutting off all downstream exposure.

You can find Security Hub Extended, shown in the following figure, in the left navigation pane under Management in your Security Hub delegated administrator (DA) account; Security Hub Extended will only be visible from the delegated administrator account. The Extended plan brings curated third-party security solutions directly into the Security Hub experience. Because Extended is built into Security Hub, there’s no separate console to manage. You discover, subscribe to, and operate curated partner solutions from the same place you manage enterprise security, delivering unified operations across your entire security estate.

Figure 3: Security Hub Extended partners

AWS Security Hub Extended – Overview and Demo | Amazon Web Services

Unlike traditional third-party engagements that require lengthy negotiations, private pricing deals, and multi-year commitments, Security Hub Extended offers complete pricing transparency. Every partner solution displays clear, competitive monthly pay-as-you-go rates billed directly with Security Hub requiring no commitments. For example, Cloud Security from Upwind costs $3.75 per resource per month, and Identity Security from Okta costs $20 per user per month.

All Security Hub Extended offerings are also eligible for AWS Enterprise Discount Program (EDP) discounts that will be applied automatically. If you have an existing AWS enterprise discount agreement, those discounts automatically apply to Security Hub Extended offerings, further reducing your effective costs. All partner solutions you deploy through Security Hub Extended appear on your consolidated AWS bill, no separate invoices or payment processes.

Adopting curated partner solutions through Security Hub Extended is straightforward. Choose View Product to initiate an automated workflow. Depending on the solution, you’ll either be directed to the partner onboarding console or provide information for the partner to guide you through their onboarding process tailored to your environment.

Billing begins only after you’re fully activated on the partner solution and starts automatically, no additional action is required to benefit from the unified billing. If you’re already using one of the curated partner solutions, transitioning to Security Hub Extended for consolidated billing and flexible pricing won’t disrupt your current services. Now, instead of receiving separate invoices for each partner in addition to Amazon Inspector, GuardDuty, and Security Hub CSPM you get one unified bill through Security Hub. This consolidates visibility to support better understanding of spend and to manage cost.

Security Hub Extended unifies security operations by consolidating findings from AWS and curated partner solutions. All findings use the Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework (OCSF) for consistency, without the need for complex data normalization, transformation, and extract, transform, and load (ETL) processes.

When you deploy solutions such as CrowdStrike, Noma, and Upwind alongside Splunk and 7AI through Security Hub Extended, security findings automatically flow into Security Hub and then seamlessly route to Splunk and 7AI. All in OCSF format so your security team can focus on responding to threats, not managing pipelines, so you can quickly identify and respond to security risks that span boundaries—from endpoint compromises to cloud infrastructure—without spending valuable time on manual integration work.

Security Hub Extended represents a shift in how you discover, procure, and build comprehensive security programs. Instead of managing dozens of vendor relationships, negotiating separate contracts, agreeing to multi-year annual commitments, and integrating disparate tools, you now have one procurement process through AWS, one bill with transparent competitive pay-as-you-go pricing, one console for unified security operations, one support channel for AWS Enterprise Support customers, and one schema (OCSF) for all security findings. The result: reduced security risk, improved team productivity, and a more unified approach to security operations across your enterprise.

Try Security Hub Extended today and experience how simplified procurement and unified operations can transform your security program. Security Hub Extended is generally available globally in all AWS commercial Regions where Security Hub is available. We’ve also published a walk through video to further explain how Security Hub Extended works.

It’s still Day 1, but we’re iterating fast, so share your feedback with us on AWS re:Post for Security Hub or through your AWS Support contacts and watch for future blog posts on our progress.

When customers experience a security incident, they need to acquire forensic artifacts to identify root cause, extract indicators of compromise (IoCs), and validate remediation efforts. NIST 800-86, Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response, defines digital forensics as a process comprised of four basic phases: collection, examination, analysis, and reporting. This blog post focuses on the first phase—collection—and provides best practices for implementing least privilege during the forensic evidence collection processes that collect evidence and store the artifacts in Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) buckets. The architecture presented in this post can be used to collect forensic evidence from both Amazon Web Services (AWS) and non-AWS compute resources.

It’s important to consider the security of the forensic artifact collection process because it involves communicating with potentially compromised resources. The collection methodology itself should be designed to avoid adding additional risks to infrastructure or other forensic investigation processes. At the same time, the collection of forensic artifacts requires the use of specialized tools that are difficult to change or adapt to new security requirements.

This post outlines factors that you should consider when creating an evidence collection capability and introduces an architecture that implements the best practices for least privilege and integrating with (instead of changing or adapting) existing forensic tools that support uploading artifacts to S3 buckets by using AWS security credentials.

The architecture presented in this post demonstrates the following AWS best practices:

1. Least privilege – Use AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies to provide least privilege access to upload forensic artifacts to an S3 location dedicated to a specific forensic collection task. The locked down credentials cannot be used to view or modify any other forensic collections.
2. Time-limited credentials – Use AWS Security Token Service (AWS STS) to provide time limited credentials, reducing the potential for an unauthorized user to abuse credentials while they’re visible on the target machine during the artifact collection process.
3. Compatibility with third-party tools – Forensic tools are specialized and changing a forensic collection process to adapt to different collection methods might not be possible. To avoid the risk of needing to change tools, maximize compatibility with any third-party tools that support uploading to S3 buckets. The method introduced in this post to generate time-limited, scoped down credentials can be used with most third-party forensic tools that support uploading to S3 buckets.
4. Credential vending – Use time-limited tokens, which can be vended on demand through an automated process, eliminating the need for forensic investigators to use the AWS Management Console, understand least privilege, or have any access to the AWS control plane. Forensic investigators can focus on the process of collecting and analyzing evidence.
5. Process automation – Deploy the process as infrastructure as code (IaC) and automate it through AWS services, reducing the burden on security teams to manually perform runbook steps during an active security incident.

This post starts with an overview of the digital forensic process, provides best practices for using Amazon S3 to store forensic artifacts, details how you can create time-limited, least privilege tokens to provide secure access to upload forensic artifacts to S3 buckets, and introduces a sample architecture that automates the end-to-end process.

Organizations need to have practices and resources in place to support a digital forensic investigation environment before an incident occurs. AWS has published several resources, including Forensic investigation environment strategies in the AWS Cloud and AWS prescriptive guidance: Security Reference Architecture, Cyber forensics, to provide best practices for organizing your AWS accounts using AWS Organizations to support forensic clean-room environments. Creating segregated AWS accounts and resources for your security teams is critical to provide your incident responders a location to store and analyze any digital forensic evidence collected during an investigation.

After you’ve established a landing zone for performing digital forensics, you’re ready to collect and process digital forensic evidence. AWS supports the collection of digital forensics through extensive logging of control plane events in AWS CloudTrail, and metrics and application logs that can be stored in Amazon CloudWatch. In addition, AWS core compute services, such as Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2), support forensics operations through snapshots of the underlying Amazon Elastic Block Storage (Amazon EBS) volume. An example architecture to demonstrate how to automate the collection of EBS volume snapshots for forensic investigations can be found in How to automate forensic disk collection in AWS.

You might want to use the same AWS infrastructure to collect, examine, analyze, and report on forensic incidents that occur on other resources, such as corporate laptops. You can use existing forensic tooling to perform live response, collecting specific artifacts such as Windows NT File System (NTFS) Master File Table (MFT), logs from Linux machines, volatile memory images, or other artifacts that are specified as part of your organization’s incident response plan. These tools can be provided by third parties or built in-house, and many support uploading to S3 buckets using AWS security credentials.

Amazon S3 provides the foundational requirements for collecting and storing forensic artifacts. Digital forensics requires highly available, durable, and secure storage of artifacts collected from potentially compromised systems. Amazon S3 is designed for 11 nines of durability and can be configured to provide protection against modification, deletion, and unauthorized access to sensitive forensic artifacts. You can also use S3 to store forensic artifacts of almost any size—from one byte to 5 TB—in an S3 object.

S3 buckets used to store forensic artifacts require custom configuration to provide additional security. You should configure the S3 bucket that you use to store forensic artifacts to enable the following security and governance features:

1. Encryption in transit. You can require the use of encryption in transit and specify acceptable TLS versions using the aws:SecureTransport and s3:TlsVersion condition keys on the S3 bucket policy.
2. Encryption at rest using a customer managed key. You can automatically encrypt all objects uploaded to the bucket using a specified customer managed key by specifying a default server-side encryption key in the bucket’s configuration. For this post, we encourage you to use a customer managed key rather than relying upon an AWS managed key, so you can control the associated key policy.
   1. Encryption at rest provides an additional layer of protection, because only entities that have both the permission to read from the bucket and permission to use the AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) key for decryption can download the forensic artifact from the S3 bucket.
   2. You need to adjust the example KMS policies in this post if the evidence collection S3 bucket uses the S3 Bucket Key feature.
3. Audit logs of all S3 data event activity. You can turn on CloudTrail data events for any S3 buckets that contain forensic artifacts to provide a comprehensive audit trail of S3 object-level API activity. This helps provide a chain of custody of any artifacts stored in your forensic buckets.
4. Fine-grained access control using IAM permissions. You can define the set of entities (both human and machine) that have access to the artifacts in the S3 bucket. This post includes how to create time-limited, least privilege access using IAM permissions for uploading files into an S3 bucket. The permissions are fine-grained enough to scope down access to specific object names or object prefixes in an S3 bucket. Additionally, access to read the artifacts can be controlled through IAM permissions and access to the encryption-at-rest KMS key.
5. Protections against data modification and deletion. S3 provides features, such as S3 object versioning, to provide assurances that data hasn’t been modified or removed after it’s been collected. This is an additional layer of protection beyond the fine-grained access permissions, so even if an authorized entity attempts to overwrite or delete an object in the S3 bucket, the previous version of the object is still available.
6. There are additional options that you can configure on the S3 bucket to protect your data against modification and deletion, including S3 Object Lock and multi-factor authentication (MFA) delete.

In addition to the preceding configuration, consider how to organize forensic artifacts in the S3 bucket. This post introduces a folder structure using S3 object prefixes to segregate each forensic artifact collection task into its own S3 object namespace. An example S3 namespace structure for an S3 bucket is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: S3 namespace structure for an S3 forensics artifact bucket using object prefixes

By separating each forensic collection task by its own prefix, you can use fine-grained IAM permissions to permit object uploads only into the active collection task. For example, scoped down credentials can be generated to only allow uploads into buckets with the CASE-0001 prefix using an IAM permission as shown in the following code example. Temporary security credentials can be generated using these limited permissions and the key is then used by the forensic acquisition tool to upload the artifacts into the S3 bucket.

{
	"Sid": "UploadToCase0001",
	"Effect": "Allow",
	"Action": [
		"s3:PutObject",
		"s3:AbortMultipartUpload"
	],
"	Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0001/*"
}

Manually creating temporary IAM credentials for each forensic collection activity can be error-prone and time-consuming. Therefore, this post demonstrates how to use AWS tooling to automate the process of generating time-limited, scoped-down credentials.

Existing forensic tools typically use IAM access keys to perform S3 operations. Using a static IAM user secret access key isn’t a best practice. Even if the static key is associated with an IAM user that has been scoped down to only have access to the forensic collection S3 bucket as described previously, that means anyone with access to that key can potentially upload objects into that bucket. Therefore, the best practice is to create a time-limited temporary security credential unique to each collection activity, scoped down to only allow uploading files to a specific prefix in the target S3 bucket.

The examples in this post use the following resource names. Because these names will change based on your deployment, substitute your resource names in place of the names in the example code.

1. The evidence S3 bucket is named mycompany-forensics-collection
2. The forensics AWS account number is 112233445566. For the purposes of this example, all resources will live within this account.
3. The customer managed key used to encrypt the forensic artifacts at rest is ForensicsEvidenceKey
4. The IAM role that incident responders will assume when signing in to their AWS account is ForensicsUserRole
5. The IAM role that incident responders will use for generating S3 file upload temporary credentials is ForensicsUploadRole
6. The example uses the us-east-1 AWS Region

The following steps show you how to configure the IAM policies associated with the customer managed key ForensicsEvidenceKey and the IAM role ForensicsUploadRole.
Before you begin, create the evidence S3 bucket configured as described in Using S3 for artifact collection and a customer managed key to encrypt the forensic artifacts at rest. Configure the evidence S3 bucket to use the KMS key by opening the S3 bucket’s properties tab in the Amazon S3 console and setting the new KMS key as the default encryption key for the bucket.

Next, create an IAM role that incident responders will assume through the AWS STS AssumeRole API to generate the temporary credentials. This role will define the maximum set of permissions allowed to upload artifacts to your evidence S3 bucket. This role, ForensicsUploadRole, created using the following example code, defines the maximum allowable permissions: the ability to upload objects into the evidence S3 bucket and to use the KMS key to encrypt those uploads. The effective permissions available to the forensic tool will be scoped down even further to the specific object prefix when the AWS STS temporary security credential is generated.

Note that the policy allows the forensics upload role Decrypt permission in addition to Encrypt; this is required when uploading files larger than 5 GB using the multi-part S3 file upload feature.

{
	"Version": "2012-10-17",
	"Statement": [
			{
				"Sid": "BasePermissionsForS3Upload",
				"Effect": "Allow",
				"Action": [
					"s3:PutObject",
					"s3:AbortMultipartUpload"
				],
				"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::mycompany-forensics-collection/*"
		},
		{
			"Sid": "KeyAccessToS3Upload",
			"Effect": "Allow",
			"Action": [
				"kms:GenerateDataKey",
				"kms:Encrypt",
				"kms:Decrypt"
			],
			"Resource": "arn:aws:kms:us-east-1:112233445566:alias/ForensicsEvidenceKey",
			"Condition": {
				"StringLike": {
					"kms:EncryptionContext:aws:s3:arn": "arn:aws:s3:::mycompany-forensics-collection/*"
				}
			}
		}
	]
}

Next, you need to provide an ability to assume this role and generate AWS STS tokens using the role’s permissions. This is accomplished by creating a trust relationship associated with the IAM role you just created. The trust relationship shown in the following code sample describes which AWS principals are allowed to assume the role—in this case, you will allow any user who has federated into the ForensicsUserRole IAM role to be able to generate AWS STS tokens for forensic artifact collection.

{
	"Version": "2012-10-17",
	"Statement": [
		{
			"Sid": "Statement1",
			"Effect": "Allow",
			"Principal": {
				"AWS": "arn:aws:iam::112233445566:role/ForensicsUserRole"
			},
			"Action": "sts:AssumeRole"
		}
	]
}

After the role is established and access to the encryption key is granted, you can use the AWS STS AssumeRole API to create temporary credentials using this role. You can call this API using the AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) or programmatically from a script. To scope down the token’s access to only provide permission to upload to the specific evidence object prefix, you must include a session policy as part of your AssumeRole API request to AWS STS. The following is an example session policy to restrict access to only upload objects into the CASE-0001 prefix.

[
	{
		"Effect": "Allow",
		"Action": [
			"s3:PutObject", 
			"s3:AbortMultipartUpload"
		],
		"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0001/*"
	},
	{
		"Effect": "Allow",
		"Action": [
			"kms:GenerateDataKey", 
			"kms:Encrypt", 
			"kms:Decrypt"
		],
		"Resource": "*",
		"Condition": {
			"StringLike": {
				"kms:EncryptionContext:aws:s3:arn": "arn:aws:s3:::mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0001/*"
			}
		}
	}
]

The effective permissions available to the session role will be the intersection of permissions available in the role policy (ForensicsUploadRole), the resource policy (in this case, mandating TLS-encrypted connections to the bucket), and the session policy that’s created on demand for every forensic collection (only allowing access to upload objects into the CASE-0001 prefix, as shown in the preceding example). Pictorially, this looks like the Venn diagram shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Intersection of IAM policies determine the effective permissions for the restricted forensic session role.

Now that the bucket has been created and the AWS KMS key and roles configured, you can use AWS STS to create a temporary security credential for a collection on CASE-0001. You can use the AWS CLI to do this manually or you can write a script to automate this process using the AWS API. The IAM access key, secret access key, and session token returned by this call can then be used by any tool that can use AWS access keys to upload files into the specified S3 bucket.

The following example shows an AWS CLI call to AssumeRole using the example ForensicsUploadRole and a case named CASE-0001. The --duration-seconds parameter defines the period, in seconds, that the temporary credentials are valid; the default of 3600 seconds will provide temporary credentials that are valid for one hour.

$ aws sts assume-role \
	--role-arn arn:aws:iam::112233445566:role/ForensicsUploadRole \
	--role-session-name CASE-0001 \
	--duration-seconds 3600 \
	--policy '{"Version": "2012-10-17", "Statement": [{"Effect": "Allow", "Action": ["s3:PutObject", "s3:AbortMultipartUpload"], "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0001/*"}, {"Sid": "BasePermissionsForS3Upload", "Effect": "Allow", "Action": ["kms:GenerateDataKey", "kms:Encrypt", "kms:Decrypt"], "Resource": "*"}]}'

{
	"Credentials": {
		"AccessKeyId": "ASIAXXXX",
		"SecretAccessKey": "XXXX",
		"SessionToken": "XXXX",
		"Expiration": "2025-04-10T17:16:13+00:00"
	},
	"AssumedRoleUser": {
		"AssumedRoleId": "AROXXXX:CASE-0001",
		"Arn": "arn:aws:sts::112233445566:assumed-role/ForensicsUploadRole/CASE-0001"
	},
	"PackedPolicySize": 39
}

Now that you have obtained temporary credentials from AWS STS, you can use those credentials to upload a file into Amazon S3:

$ AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID=ASIAXXXX \
	AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY=XXXX \
	AWS_SESSION_TOKEN=XXXX \
	aws s3 cp evidence.zip s3://mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0001/evidence.zip

upload: evidence.zip to s3://mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0001/evidence.zip

You can also verify that you can’t use those credentials to upload a file into any other object prefixes or S3 buckets. For example, if you change CASE-0001 to CASE-0004 in the Amazon S3 upload command, you will receive an AccessDenied error because you’re trying to upload an object outside of the allowed key prefix.

$ AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID=ASIAXXXX \
	AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY=XXXX \
	AWS_SESSION_TOKEN=XXXX \
	aws s3 cp evidence.zip s3://mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0004/evidence.zip

upload failed: evidence.zip to s3://mycompany-forensics-collection/cases/CASE-0004/evidence.zip
An error occurred (AccessDenied) when calling the PutObject operation: User: arn:aws:sts::112233445566:assumed-role/ForensicsUploadRole/CASE-0001 is not authorized to perform: s3:PutObject on resource: "arn:aws:s3:::mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0004/evidence.zip" because no session policy allows the s3:PutObject action

Additionally, if you wait more than the lifetime of the token (1 hour in this case), attempting to upload a file into the bucket will fail, because the token will no longer be valid:

$ AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID=ASIAXXXX \
	AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY=XXXX \
	AWS_SESSION_TOKEN=XXXX \
	aws s3 cp evidence.zip s3://mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0001/evidence.zip

upload failed: evidence.zip to s3://mycompany-forensics-collection/CASE-0001/evidence.zip

An error occurred (ExpiredToken) when calling the PutObject operation: The provided token has expired.

After you’ve verified the security benefits of creating temporary credentials for S3 uploads and validated that the credentials work with your forensic software of choice, you can now use them as part of an automated process.

A sample automated architecture is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Architecture to automate S3 credential vending and forensic artifact collection.

The workflow depicted in Figure 3 includes the following steps:

1. The workflow is triggered by an alert from a detection source or a manual trigger from an incident responder.
2. The workflow input is added to an Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) queue.
3. The Amazon SQS queue invokes an AWS Lambda function which in turn executes a Step Functions state machine to orchestrate the workflow.
4. First, the Step Functions workflow determines whether the target system is managed by AWS Systems Manager.
   1. If the target system isn’t managed by Systems Manager, an error is noted, and the execution is abandoned.
   2. If the target system is managed by Systems Manager, the Step Functions workflow determines the operating system (OS) of the target system and proceeds with the flow of execution.
5. The workflow then continues by executing the Systems Manager documents that implement the forensic collection process:
1. Downloads tooling:
   1. Generates dynamically scoped IAM temporary credentials that provide access to download the OS-specific tooling to be executed on the target system from the tooling S3 bucket. These credentials are tightly scoped to only allow downloads from the S3 prefix that corresponds to the tooling for the target system’s OS.
   2. Executes a Systems Manager command on the target system that uses the credentials generated from the previous step to download the OS tooling on the target system.
2. Runs forensic tools:

• Executes a Systems Manager command on the target system to execute the OS tooling on the target system.

1. Generates dynamically scoped IAM temporary credentials (as described previously) that provide access to upload the output of the previously executed tooling to the evidence S3 bucket. These credentials are tightly scoped to only allow uploads to a particular S3 prefix corresponding to the alert prefix.
2. Executes a Systems Manager command on the target system to upload the output of the previously executed tooling to the evidence S3 bucket. After the upload is complete, it cleans up both the output and the evidence tooling from the target system.
3. The evidence S3 bucket is tightly locked down to a subset of identities within the AWS security account. Access attempts from identities that aren’t allow listed trigger an Amazon EventBridge rule to alert the security team through an Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) topic.

You can use the AWS Cloud Development Kit (AWS CDK) repository to implement the architecture shown in Figure 3.

The AWS CDK solution is split into three stacks:

1. SecurityStack: This stack contains the basic forensic artifact workflow orchestration infrastructure described in this post, including the Step Functions workflow, Lambda functions, AWS SQS queues, IAM roles, and S3 buckets.
2. AlertStack: This stack contains the EventBridge workflow to notify administrators of anomalous activity in the evidence S3 bucket.
3. CustomerStack: This stack contains the SSM documents that are executed for the forensic artifact workflow and an IAM role assumed by the SecurityStack when the workflow is invoked. It’s deployed into each child AWS account containing EC2 instances from which the security account is authorized to collect forensic artifacts.

Before deploying the solution, there are several variables in the config.ts file that must be modified for the environment:

1. SECURITY_ACCOUNT: Security Tooling AWS account ID.
2. CUSTOMER_ACCOUNTS: Target AWS account IDs (the Child AWS account in the architecture diagram).
3. ALERT_EMAIL_RECIPIENTS: List of email addresses that receive alerts when there is unexpected access to the evidence S3 bucket.
4. ALLOW_LISTED_ROLE_NAMES: Roles allowed to access the evidence S3 bucket. Any other identities accessing the evidence S3 bucket will result in an alarm.

After you’ve updated the config.ts file to reflect the account numbers, email recipients, and role names, the stacks can be deployed into your AWS infrastructure.

1. Set Up AWS credentials using the AWS CLI:
   aws configure
2. Install dependencies and configure constants:
   1. Clone the repository.
   2. Navigate to the project directory.
   3. Install project dependencies:
      npm install
   4. Configure constants in constants/config.ts with the required information:

      export const SECURITY_ACCOUNT = "123456789012"; // Your security tooling account ID 
      export const CUSTOMER_ACCOUNTS = ["234567890123", "345678901234"]; // Target account IDs 
      export const ALLOW_LISTED_ROLE_NAMES = ["SecurityAnalystRole"];// Roles allowed to access evidence S3 bucket 
      export const ALERT_EMAIL_RECIPIENTS = ["soc_team@company.com"];// Email addresses for alerts

3. Bootstrap AWS CDK in your accounts (if it hasn’t been done already):
   1. Example: cdk bootstrap aws://456789012345/us-east-1 (example security AWS account).
   2. Then bootstrap if necessary in any target AWS accounts.
4. Deploy the AWS CDK Stacks:
   1. Synthesize the CloudFormation template:
      cdk synth
   2. Deploy the security and alert stacks in your security account:
      cdk deploy SecurityStack AlertStack
   3. Deploy the customer stacks in your workload accounts:
      cdk deploy CustomerStack-ACCOUNT_ID
5. Set up your email alerts:
   1. After the AlertStack is deployed, it will email all addresses listed in ALERT_EMAIL_RECIPIENTS. Choose the embedded link to accept the AWS SNS topic in each of those accounts.

With deployment complete, it’s time to test the solution.

1. Trigger an analysis
   1. Make sure you have a Linux EC2 instance running in one of your customer accounts and in the AWS Region where you deployed the preceding customer stack.
   2. Because this example uses Systems Manager to orchestrate the collection script, make sure that the EC2 instance is visible in Systems Manager either by checking the Systems Manager console, or by using the AWS CLI:
      1. Console: In the AWS Systems Manager console, choose Managed instances in the left navigation pane and verify your instance appears in the list. For more information, see Managed Instances in the AWS Systems Manager User Guide.
      2. AWS CLI: Run the following command to verify the instance is managed:
         aws ssm describe-instance-information --filters “Key=InstanceIds,Values=<instance-id>
         If the command returns instance information with PingStatus: Online, the instance is properly connected to Systems Manager.
   3. Post a message in your security account to the Amazon SQS queue to start the Step Functions workflow. Note that the values in angle brackets (for example <accountID>) are placeholders that you must update with relevant AWS account ID, tracking ticket ID, AWS Region, and EC2 instance ID values:
      aws sqs send-message --queue-url --message-body ‘{ “account”: “”, “ticket_id”: “”, “region”: “>”, “instance_id”: “” }’
2. Go to the Step Functions console to view the successful execution of the workflow:
   
   

   Figure 4: Workflow as shown in the Step Functions console

3. View the DynamoDB table to see the metadata for the results.
4. Check the evidence S3 bucket to see the uploaded files from the forensic collection.

Collecting forensic artifacts securely is a critical component of any digital forensics investigation. This post demonstrated how to implement least privilege access controls and time-limited credentials for forensic evidence collection workflows that use Amazon S3 for artifact storage. By combining IAM session policies with AWS STS temporary credentials, you can provide forensic tools with secure, scoped-down access to upload artifacts without exposing long-lived credentials or granting overly permissive access.

The architecture presented in this post automates the process of generating temporary credentials, collecting forensic artifacts from both AWS and non-AWS resources, and securely storing them in S3 buckets with appropriate encryption, access controls, and audit logging. With this approach, your security teams can focus on analyzing evidence instead of managing credentials and permissions during active security incidents.To get started with this solution, deploy the example AWS CDK stacks provided in the collect forensic artifacts repository and customize them for your organization’s forensic investigation requirements. For more information about related AWS forensic investigation architectures, review the Automated Forensics Orchestrator for EC2 and How to build forensic kernel modules for Linux EC2 instances resources.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this post, contact AWS Support.

If you run high-scale applications that encrypt large volumes of data, you might be concerned about tracking encryption limits and rotating keys. This post explains how AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) and the AWS Encryption SDK handle Advanced Encryption Standard in Galois Counter Mode’s (AES-GCM) encryption limits or bounds automatically by using derived key methods so you don’t have to. These methods generate a new derived key Kd from the main key K by using a random nonce. That way, encryption is done with a unique key each time, and K can be used for much longer. Similar derived key modes have been proposed in various schemes recently like (KC-)XAES, DNDK v2, and ia.cr/2020/1153.

Symmetric encryption algorithms encrypt large amounts of data in transit and at rest. Modern ciphers also authenticate data using an authentication tag — these are called Authenticated Encryption with Additional Data (AEAD) ciphers. Examples of AEAD ciphers include AES-GCM and ChaCha20/Poly1305.

AES-GCM is the most widely used encryption algorithm and was standardized by NIST in SP 800-38D. AES-GCM uses a 128- or 256-bit key K and a (usually 96-bit) initialization vector (IV) to encrypt and authenticate a plaintext P. It also authenticates additional authenticated data (AAD). The output is a ciphertext C and an authentication tag T:
(C, T) = AES-GCM(K, IV, AAD, P)

At decryption, the recipient decrypts C and verifies the tag T by using K, IV and AAD and produces the original plaintext P (assuming the tag was authenticated successfully).

When encrypting data, it’s critical that the K, IV tuple does not repeat for the life of the key K. Otherwise, the security properties of AES-GCM are lost. SP 800-38D requires an implementation to have a probability of key and IV reuse less than one in 4.29 billion (<2^-32). This can be achieved by using a deterministic IV that doesn’t repeat or a random IV. If a random IV is used, then it is necessary to rekey after 2³² encryptions. For example, common protocols like TLS or IKEv2/IPsec prevent (K, IV) collisions by using deterministic (that is, starting from a random value and incrementing) IVs per connection.

Assuming the probability of an (K, IV) collision is statistically insignificant (<2^-32), there are still data bounds when encrypting large amounts of plaintexts with the same key K. The block counter in AES-GCM is 32-bits, which leads to a limit of 2³²-2 blocks (68.72 GB) per encryption operation (per (K, IV) pair). Additionally, a failure to restrict the total amount of data reduces the security guarantees an adversary can distinguish between two different plaintexts, that is knowing which of two messages are encrypted in the ciphertext. The higher protection of indistinguishability, the lower the total number of bytes you can encrypt. NIST’s specification, SP 800-38D, suggests a limit of 2⁶⁸ bytes protected under a single key K which provides an indistinguishability probability of 50%. More conservative security margins are sometimes used, based on different analyses (ia.cr/2024/051, 10.1145/3243734.3243816). AWS sets a more conservative margin too, enforcing a negligible indistinguishability probability (<2^-32) by default.

Once you reach the AES-GCM data bounds for a given security margin, you need to rotate the symmetric key. Such limits (for example, 2³² encryptions per key with random IVs, or encrypting the maximum total data per key) could be reached in modern, high-scale encryption use cases. Tracking these limits across distributed systems with many concurrent sessions adds operational complexity. We have shared these challenges with using AES-GCM at the scale of AWS in a writeup and a presentation in NIST’s third NIST Workshop on Block Cipher Modes of Operation in 2023.

AWS KMS is a managed service that you can use to create and control the keys used to encrypt and sign data. The AWS KMS Encrypt API supports symmetric and asymmetric encryption. For symmetric key encryption, AWS KMS uses AES-GCM with 256-bit keys to encrypt a plaintext up to 4 KB in size. The AWS KMS request includes the plaintext, and the symmetric key identifier (KeyId) of the symmetric customer managed key (CMK) stored in KMS.

A symmetric key Encrypt API call to AWS KMS uses the CMK to derive a symmetric encryption key before encrypting the plaintext. AWS KMS generates a random 128-bit nonce N and produces a 256-bit symmetric key from the main key K specified in the KeyId by using a key derivation function (KDF). A KDF takes in a key, a label and context, an invocation-specific nonce N, and an output length LKm in bytes, and produces key material of that length as Kmat = KDF(K, <label>, <context>, N, LKm). <label> is usually an application- or invocation-specific value. <context> includes invocation-specific input. For AWS KMS, the KDF function is a NIST SP 800-108r1 Counter Mode KDF producing 256 bits of keying material with HMAC-SHA256 as the pseudorandom function. Kd is essentially produced with one call to HMAC-SHA256 with key K as:
Kd = HMAC-SHA256(K, <ctx>),
where <ctx> consists of a counter value concatenated with constants and N.

Subsequently, AWS KMS generates a 96-bit random IV and encrypts the input plaintext input P with AES-GCM as (C, T) = AES-GCM(Kd, IV, AAD, P).

AWS KMS returns a CiphertextBlob that includes the IV, nonce N, ciphertext and tag (C,T) so that the CiphertextBlob can be decrypted on subsequent calls to the Decrypt API.

Intuitively, the 128-bit random nonce used to derive a per encryption key under a CMK ensures that a caller can go way over the 2³² limit on the number of encryptions they can make under the CMK. Furthermore, the limit of 4 KB on the payload size for an AWS Encrypt call ensures the total amount of data encrypted under an encryption key stays well below NIST or other more conservative total encryption bounds. For more details and the mathematics of the security underpinnings of this scheme, see Key Management Systems at the Cloud Scale.

The AWS Encryption SDK is a client-side encryption library used for encrypting and decrypting data. It can be configured to use data key caching to reduce API calls when encrypting multiple payloads. Using a nonce-based derived key for each AES-GCM encryption invocation eliminates the need for customers to keep track of the total amount of data they encrypt under a single data key.

Although the AWS Encryption SDK provides a lot of flexibility to accommodate many encryption scenarios, the default configuration handles key derivation and frame sizing automatically, so you don’t need to tune these settings for most use cases. To derive a different key per invocation, like AWS KMS, it uses a randomly generated value, N, the main key K, and some invocation-specific context in the KDF. N is 256 bits in the default configuration. The underlying KDF is the HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF) with SHA512 as the default hash. Kd is essentially produced with one HKDF call with key K as:
Kd = HKDF(K, salt=<lbl>, info=<ctx>, 32),
where <lbl> is a constant and <ctx> consists of constants concatenated with a random 256-bit value in the default configuration.

Subsequently, the AWS Encryption SDK uses the derived key Kd to encrypt user content, broken into 4-KB frames by default. Each frame plaintext Pf is encrypted with AES-GCM with a deterministic IV as (C, T) = AES-GCM(Kd, IV, AAD, Pf).

The 96-bit deterministic IV consists of the frame counter frameID, where frameID<2³². The additional authenticated data AAD is specific to the Encryption SDK data frame. At decryption, the recipient derives Kd from K in the same way and decrypts the ciphertext C to produce the frame plaintext Pf and validates the authentication tag T.

The 4 KB frame size ensures that by default no more than 2⁴⁴ bytes (2³² frames of 4 K bytes each) of data can be encrypted under a single encryption key. This is well below the NIST suggested bound (2⁶⁸), even with data key caching. It is also well below our conservative requirement of <2^-32 indistinguishability probability. The limit of invocations per key, even with data key caching, exceeds the encryption counts in most high-scale applications.

Note: While the AWS Encryption SDK makes conservative choices in its default configuration, if you’re using legacy version 1.0 or making configuration changes, you might have lower security guarantees. For example, a custom maximized frame size of 2³²-1 bytes would lead to larger total plaintext size which is still below the 2⁶⁸ NIST suggested limit, but not below other conservative bounds.

Note that the default AWS Encryption SDK configuration also provides lesser-known security properties, like key commitment. The commitment string is produced similarly to the derived key, by using K and HKDF.

By deriving a unique key per encryption call, AWS KMS and the AWS Encryption SDK eliminate the need to manually track AES-GCM limits.

For the academic basis for AES-GCM’s bounds, see SP 800-38D and draft-irtf-cfrg-aead-limits. To read more on the cryptographic analysis of the key derivation scheme used in KMS, see Key Management Systems at the Cloud Scale. For more details on the Encryption SDK AES-GCM key derivation, see the AWS Encryption SDK algorithms reference.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this post, start a new thread on the AWS Security, Identity, & Compliance re:Post or contact AWS Support.
 

Amazon threat intelligence has identified an active Interlock ransomware campaign exploiting CVE-2026-20131, a critical vulnerability in Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center (FMC) Software that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary Java code as root on an affected device, which was disclosed by Cisco on March 4, 2026.

After Cisco’s disclosure, Amazon threat intelligence began research into this vulnerability using Amazon MadPot’s global sensor network—a system of honeypot servers that attract and monitor cybercriminal activity. While looking for any current or past exploits of this vulnerability, our research found that Interlock was exploiting this vulnerability 36 days before its public disclosure, beginning January 26, 2026. This wasn’t just another vulnerability exploit, Interlock had a zero-day in their hands, giving them a week’s head start to compromise organizations before defenders even knew to look. Upon making this discovery, we shared our findings with Cisco to help support their investigation and protect customers.

A misconfigured infrastructure server—essentially, a poorly secured staging area used by the attackers—exposed Interlock’s complete operational toolkit. This rare mistake provided Amazon’s security teams with visibility into the ransomware group’s multi-stage attack chain, custom remote access trojans (backdoor programs that give attackers control of compromised systems), reconnaissance scripts (automated tools for mapping victim networks), and evasion techniques.

AWS infrastructure and customer workloads on AWS were not observed to be involved in this campaign. This advisory shares comprehensive technical analysis and indicators of compromise to help organizations identify potential compromise and defend against Interlock’s operations. Organizations running Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center should immediately apply Cisco’s security patches and review the indicators provided below.

Amazon threat intelligence identified threat activity potentially related to CVE-2026-20131 beginning January 26, 2026, predating the public disclosure. Observed activity involved HTTP requests to a specific path in the affected software. Request bodies contained Java code execution attempts and two embedded URLs: one used to deliver configuration data supporting the exploit, and another designed to confirm successful exploitation by causing a vulnerable target to perform an HTTP PUT request and upload a generated file. Multiple variations of these URLs were observed across different exploit attempts.

To advance the investigation and obtain additional threat intelligence, we performed the expected HTTP PUT request with the anticipated file content—essentially, we pretended to be a successfully compromised system. This successfully prompted Interlock to proceed to the next stage, issuing commands to fetch and execute a malicious ELF binary (a Linux executable file) from a remote server.

When analysts retrieved the binary, they discovered the same host (attacker-controlled server) is used for distributing Interlock’s entire operational toolkit. The exposed infrastructure organized artifacts into separate paths corresponding to individual targets, with the same paths used for both downloading tools to compromised hosts and uploading operational artifacts back to the staging server.

The ELF binary and associated artifacts are attributable to the Interlock ransomware family based on convergent technical and operational indicators. The embedded ransom note and TOR negotiation portal are consistent with Interlock’s established branding and infrastructure. The ransom note’s invocation of multiple data protection regulations reflects Interlock’s documented practice of citing regulatory exposure to pressure victims, essentially threatening organizations not just with data encryption, but with regulatory fines and compliance violations. The campaign-specific organization identifier embedded in the note aligns with Interlock’s per-victim tracking model.

Interlock has historically targeted specific sectors where operational disruption creates maximum pressure for payment. Education represents the largest share of their activity, followed by engineering, architecture, and construction firms, manufacturing and industrial organizations, healthcare providers, and government and public sector entities.

Temporal analysis performed on timestamps from observed threat activities, artifacts stored on the misconfigured infrastructure server, and metadata embedded within recovered threat artifacts indicates the actor most likely operates in UTC+3 with 75–80% confidence. Systematic analysis across all UTC offsets showed UTC+3 produced the best fit: first activity around 08:30, peak activity between 12:00 and 18:00, and a probable sleep window of 00:30–08:30.

Figure 1: Interlock ransomware negotiation portal where victims enter their organization ID and email address to receive an auth token to begin a negotiation chat session.

Once Interlock gains initial access, they use a variety of priority tools to complete their attack. Amazon threat intelligence teams recovered a PowerShell script designed for systematic Windows environment enumeration (automated information gathering about the victim’s network). The script collects operating system and hardware details, running services, installed software, storage configuration, Hyper-V virtual machine inventory, user file listings across Desktop, Documents, and Downloads directories, browser artifacts from Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Internet Explorer, and 360 browser (including history, bookmarks, stored credentials, and extensions), active network connections correlated with responsible processes, ARP tables, iSCSI session data, and RDP authentication events from Windows event logs.

The script stages results to a centralized network share (\JK-DC2\Temp) using each system’s fully qualified hostname to create dedicated directories—essentially creating a folder for each compromised computer. Following collection, it compresses data into ZIP archives named after each hostname and removes original raw data. This structured per-host output format indicates the script operates across multiple machines within a network—a hallmark of ransomware intrusion chains that prepare for organization-wide encryption.

Remote access trojans (RATs) are malicious programs that give attackers persistent control over compromised systems, functioning like unauthorized remote desktop software.

JavaScript implant: Amazon threat intelligence recovered an obfuscated JavaScript remote access trojan that suppresses debugging output by overriding browser console methods (hiding its activity from basic detection tools). On execution, it profiles the infected host using PowerShell and Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI), collecting system identity, domain membership, username, OS version, and privilege context before transmitting this data during an encrypted initialization handshake.

Command-and-control communication occurs over persistent WebSocket connections with RC4-encrypted messages using per-message 16-byte random keys embedded in packet headers—essentially, each message uses a different encryption key, making interception more difficult. The implant cycles through multiple operator-controlled hostnames and IP addresses in randomized order with exponential backoff between reconnection attempts.

The implant provides interactive shell access, arbitrary command execution, bidirectional file transfer, and SOCKS5 proxy capability for tunneling TCP traffic (routing malicious traffic through other systems to hide its origin). Self-update and self-delete capabilities allow operators to replace or remove the implant without reinfection, supporting operational cleanup to hinder forensic investigation.

Java implant: A functionally equivalent client implemented in Java provides identical command-and-control capabilities. Built on GlassFish ecosystem libraries, it uses Grizzly for non-blocking I/O transport and Tyrus for WebSocket protocol communication. In simpler terms, Interlock built the same backdoor in two different programming languages, ensuring they maintain access even if defenders detect one version.

Sophisticated threat actors don’t attack from their own infrastructure, they build disposable relay networks to hide their tracks. Amazon threat intelligence teams identified a Bash script that configures Linux servers as HTTP reverse proxies (intermediary servers that forward traffic to hide the attacker’s true location). The script performs system updates, installs fail2ban with SSH brute-force protection, and compiles HAProxy 3.1.2 from source. The HAProxy instance listens on port 80 and forwards all inbound HTTP traffic to a hardcoded target IP, with systemd ensuring persistence across reboots.

A notable component is a log erasure routine running as a cron job every five minutes. The routine truncates all *.log files under /var/log and suppresses shell history by unsetting the HISTFILE variable. This aggressive evidence destruction, wiping logs every five minutes, combined with the purpose-built HTTP forwarding proxy, indicates the script establishes disposable traffic-laundering relay nodes. These nodes obscure exploit traffic origin, relay command-and-control communications, or proxy data exfiltration, making it nearly impossible to trace attacks back to their source.

Amazon threat intelligence teams observed a Java class file delivered as an alternative to the ELF binary drop. When loaded by the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), its static initializer registers a ServletRequestListener with the server’s StandardContext, essentially installing a persistent memory-resident backdoor that intercepts HTTP requests without writing files to disk. This “fileless” approach evades traditional antivirus scanning that looks for malicious files.

The listener inspects incoming requests for specially crafted parameters containing encrypted command payloads. Payloads are decrypted using AES-128 with a key derived from the MD5 hash of the hardcoded seed “geckoformboundary99fec155ea301140cbe26faf55ed2f40″ (using the first 16 characters: 09b1a8422e8faed0). Decrypted payloads are treated as compiled Java bytecode, dynamically loaded into the JVM, and executed—a technique designed to evade file-based detection by running malicious code entirely in memory.

Amazon threat intelligence teams recovered Java class files implementing a basic TCP server listening on port 45588 (encoded as Unicode character 넔 to obscure the port number from static analysis). The server accepts connections, logs connecting IP addresses, sends a greeting message, and immediately closes connections. This operational profile is consistent with a lightweight network beacon—essentially a “phone home” tool used to verify successful code execution or confirm network port reachability following initial exploitation.

Interlock deployed ConnectWise ScreenConnect, a legitimate commercial remote desktop tool, alongside custom implants. When ransomware operators deploy legitimate remote access tools alongside their custom malware, they’re buying insurance—if defenders find and remove one backdoor, they still have another way in. This indicates multiple redundant remote access mechanisms—a pattern consistent with ransomware operators seeking to maintain access even if individual footholds are removed. The tool’s legitimate network footprint helps blend with authorized remote administration traffic, making detection more challenging.

Amazon threat intelligence teams also recovered Volatility, an open-source memory forensics framework typically used by incident responders (the same tool defenders use to investigate attacks). While no artifacts indicated automated use, its presence alongside custom implants and reconnaissance scripts is consistent with advanced threat operations. Both ransomware groups and nation-state actors have been observed deploying Volatility during intrusions. The tool’s focus on parsing memory dumps provides access to sensitive data such as credentials stored in RAM, which can enable lateral movement (spreading through the network) and deeper environment compromise in support of ransom operations or espionage objectives.

Interlock also used Certify, an open source offensive security tool designed to exploit misconfigurations in Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS). For ransomware operators, Certify provides a pathway to identify vulnerable certificate templates and enrollment permissions that allow requesting authentication-capable certificates. These certificates can be used to impersonate users, escalate privileges, or maintain persistent access. These capabilities directly support both initial compromise and long-term persistence objectives in ransomware operations.

The following indicators support defensive measures by organizations that may be affected. Due to Interlock’s use of content variation techniques, most file hashes are not included as reliable indicators. The threat actor modified most artifacts like scripts and binaries downloaded to different targets. This resulted in different file hashes for functionally identical tools. The customization allowed each attack to evade signature-based detection that looks for exact file matches.

Organizations should take the following actions to protect against Interlock ransomware operations.

Immediate actions:

• Apply Cisco’s security patches for Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center
• Review logs for the indicators of compromise listed above
• Conduct security assessments to identify potential compromise
• Review ScreenConnect deployments for unauthorized installations

Detection opportunities:

• Monitor for PowerShell scripts staging data to network shares with hostname-based directory structures
• Detect Java ServletRequestListener registrations in web application contexts (unusual modifications to Java web applications)
• Identify HAProxy installations with aggressive log deletion cron jobs (proxy servers that erase their own logs every five minutes)
• Watch for TCP connections to unusual high-numbered ports (e.g., 45588)

Long-term measures:

• Implement defense-in-depth strategies with multiple layers of security controls
• Maintain continuous threat monitoring and hunting capabilities
• Ensure comprehensive logging with secure, centralized log storage (stored separately from systems that could be compromised)
• Regularly test incident response procedures for ransomware scenarios
• Educate security teams on Interlock’s tactics, techniques, and procedures

The real story here isn’t just about one vulnerability or one ransomware group—it’s about the fundamental challenge zero-day exploits pose to every security model. When attackers exploit vulnerabilities before patches exist, even the most diligent patching programs can’t protect you in that critical window. This is precisely why defense in depth is essential—layered security controls provide protection when any single control fails or hasn’t yet been deployed. Rapid patching remains foundational in vulnerability management, but defense in depth helps organizations not to be defenseless during the window between exploit and patch.

Amazon Threat Intelligence teams continue to monitor Interlock ransomware operations and will provide updates as additional information becomes available. The intelligence gathered from this campaign is being integrated into AWS security services to protect customers proactively.

AI agents have traditionally faced three core limitations: they can’t retain learned information or operate autonomously beyond short periods, and they require constant supervision. AWS addresses these limitations with frontier agents—a new category of AI that performs complex reasoning, multi-step planning, and autonomous execution for hours or days. Multi-agent collaboration has emerged as a powerful approach that helps tackle complex workflows that require multiple steps and diverse expertise—such as in software development where agents handle code generation, review, and testing; in scientific research where agents collaborate on literature review, experimental design, and data analysis; and in cybersecurity where specialized agents perform reconnaissance, vulnerability analysis, and exploit validation.

In this post, we discuss how we’ve used this technology to deliver automated penetration testing, something that can traditionally take weeks and is resource intensive. We also provide a technical deep-dive into the architecture of the penetration testing component built into AWS Security Agent.

The concept of automated security testing isn’t new—penetration testing tools and vulnerability scanners have existed for decades. However, with recent advancements in large language models (LLMs), frontier agents are designed to reason about application behavior, adapt strategies based on feedback, and understand context in ways that traditional tools can’t. By creating a network of specialized agents, we can address increasingly complex security challenges: one agent maps the attack surface while others analyze business logic flaws, validate findings, and prioritize vulnerabilities based on actual exploitability. The exploitability context comes from the combination of actual exploit attempts by swarm agent workers, independent re-validation by specialized validators, and LLM-driven scoring according to the common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS).

We’ve developed automated penetration testing for the AWS Security Agent. This capability includes a multi-agent penetration testing system that orchestrates specialized security agents to work collaboratively on vulnerability detection. The system begins with multiple types of scanning to establish baseline coverage, then conducts broad reconnaissance using static, predefined tasks to map the application surface and identify initial attack vectors. Building on these findings, our agentic system dynamically generates focused test tasks tailored to the specific application context—reasoning about discovered endpoints, business logic patterns, and potential vulnerability chains to create targeted security tests that adapt based on application responses. By combining these specialized capabilities, the system can tackle complex security scenarios across major risk categories. Beyond single-vulnerability detection, the system performs complex chained attacks—for instance, combining an information disclosure flaw with privilege escalation to access sensitive resources, or chaining insecure direct object references (IDOR) with authentication bypass.

Figure 1: Diagram of the AWS Security Agent penetration testing component.

This section describes the major components of the system. The following subsections cover authentication and initial access, baseline scanning, multi-phased exploration with the specialized agent swarm, and validation with report generation.

The system begins with an intelligent sign-in component that handles authentication across diverse application architectures. This component combines LLM-based reasoning with deterministic mechanisms to locate sign-in pages, attempt provided credentials, and maintain authenticated sessions for subsequent testing phases. The approach adapts to different application structures and target environments automatically and uses a browser tool. The developer can optionally provide a custom sign-in prompt tailored to the target application.

Following authentication, the system initiates comprehensive baseline scanning through parallel execution of specialized scanners. For black-box testing, the network scanner conducts automated web application security testing, generating raw traffic interactions and identifying candidate vulnerable endpoints. In white-box settings, the code scanner additionally performs deep source code analysis when repositories are available, producing descriptive documentation across multiple categories. Additional specialized scanners complement these capabilities to identify vulnerabilities across multiple dimensions and establish initial security coverage.

The system employs two distinct exploration approaches that work in concert. Managed execution operates with predefined static tasks across major risk categories like cross-site scripting, insecure direct object reference, privilege escalation, and so on. This component systematically helps ensure comprehensive coverage by executing curated tasks for each risk type. In the next phase, guided exploration takes a dynamic, intelligence-driven approach. This component ingests discovered endpoints, validated findings, and code analysis documentation to reason about application-specific attack opportunities. It operates in two stages: first generating a contextual penetration testing plan by identifying unexplored resources and potential vulnerability chains, then programmatically managing the execution of these dynamically generated tasks. The guided explorer runs with adaptive tasks that evolve based on application responses and discovered patterns.

Specialized agent swarm
Both exploration approaches dispatch work to specialized swarm worker agents—each configured for specific risk types and equipped with comprehensive penetration testing toolkits including code executors, web fuzzers, NVD vulnerability database search for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) intelligence, and vulnerability-specific tools. These workers execute assigned tasks with timeout management and structured reporting.

When specialized agents identify potential security risks, they generate structured reports containing the vulnerability type, affected endpoints, exploitation evidence, and technical context. However, automated penetration testing faces a critical challenge: LLM agents can produce plausible-sounding findings that require rigorous validation. Candidate findings undergo validation through both deterministic validators and specialized LLM-based agents that attempt active exploitation. We employ assertion-based validation techniques where natural language assertions written by security experts encode deep knowledge about real attack behaviors, requiring explicit, structured proof that’s significantly harder to circumvent than narrow deterministic checks. Validated findings undergo Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) analysis for severity assessment, then are synthesized into final reports with validation results, severity scores, and exploitation evidence—designed to deliver actionable, high-confidence vulnerabilities for effective remediation.

To evaluate our system, we performed human evaluation in addition to automatic benchmarking. We conducted analysis on real-world trajectories and created a taxonomy of error patterns. By spotting frequent error patterns, we were able to iterate on our solution. We report results on the CVE Bench public benchmark, which is a collection of vulnerable web applications containing 40 critical-severity CVEs from the National Vulnerability Database used to evaluate AI agents on real-world exploits. Each application includes automatic exploit references, and LLM-based agents attempt to execute attacks that trigger the vulnerabilities.

We measure success through the attack success rate (ASR) metric, defined as the rate of successful exploitation of application vulnerabilities. CVE Bench uses a grader that the agent can query to verify exploit success and provides explicit capture-the-flag (CTF) instructions. We evaluate in three configurations:

1. With CTF instructions and grader checks after each tool call, achieving 92.5% on CVE Bench v2.0 (we note that some challenges involve blind exploitation where the agent cannot verify success without this feedback).
2. Without CTF instructions or grader feedback, achieving 80%—which better reflects real-world conditions where the agent must self-validate through observable outcomes. We also observed that the agent was able to identify some CVEs based on the LLM’s parametric knowledge, as shown in the following bash command where the model explicitly references a CVE by name.
3. Therefore, we ran an additional experiment using an LLM whose knowledge cutoff date predates CVE Bench v1.0 release, achieving 65% ASR.

The following code example shows an LLM agent demonstrating parametric knowledge of CVE-2023-37999 from its training data, then issuing a bash command to check exploitation prerequisites.

# HT Mega 2.2.0 has a known vulnerability – CVE-2023-37999
# It has an unauthenticated privilege escalation via the REST API settings endpoint
# Let's check if registration is enabled
curl -s http://target:9090/wp-login.php?action=register -I | head -10

We’re committed to pushing the frontier of security vulnerability detection by continuously evaluating our agent and staying competitive with newer, more challenging benchmarks.

One challenge for penetration testing is determining the balance between exploitation and exploration. Using a depth-first approach can waste too much compute on specific directions, leading to lower vulnerability coverage under a fixed compute budget. Compare that to breadth-first search, which is unlikely to discover deep vulnerabilities that require testing multiple approaches. Therefore, a balance between the two approaches is needed to maximize coverage for a given compute budget. Our proposed system design aims to include a hybrid approach. A more efficient dynamic solution that generalizes across various vulnerabilities and different web applications remains an open research question.

Another challenge with penetration testing is non-determinism. Because of the underlying LLMs, the output of penetration test runs can vary from one run to another. Having different findings across multiple runs can lead to confusion. One option to mitigate this is to perform multiple runs and consolidate the findings across them.

The multi-agent architecture presented in this post demonstrates how you can use specialized agents that can collaborate to tackle complex penetration testing workflows—from intelligent authentication and baseline scanning through managed and guided exploration phases, culminating in rigorous validation. By orchestrating these specialized components with adaptive task generation and assertion-based validation, the system delivers comprehensive security coverage that evolves based on application-specific context and discovered patterns.

AWS Security Agent is now in public preview, for more information, see Getting Started with AWS Security Agent.