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

It’s only been a few weeks since Anthropic announced the Claude Mythos Preview model and launched Project Glasswing with AWS and other leading organizations. This has generated a lot of discussion about the future of cybersecurity and what the ever-increasing capabilities of foundation models mean to organizations.

As AWS CISO Amy Herzog pointed out in the Project Glasswing announcement, “At AWS, we build defenses before threats emerge, from our custom silicon up through the technology stack. Security isn’t a phase for us; it’s continuous and embedded in everything we do.”

Read more from Amy about this in Building AI defenses at scale: Before the threats emerge.

While the discussion around the future of cybersecurity is important, the only thing we know for certain is that organizations need to be able to react quickly to the rapid changes AI is bringing to technology and business in general. And you can’t react quickly if your security fundamentals aren’t dialed in.

It’s easy to assume you have the foundational security elements covered, or to overlook some completely. Basic security use cases like identity management, threat detection, vulnerability management, data protection, and network security can be inconsistently implemented across cloud environments. While AI is reshaping the security landscape, strong security fundamentals continue to be essential for every organization, regardless of size or industry.

These are the security basics that matter whether or not you’re adopting AI: patching consistently, enforcing least-privilege access, enabling logging and monitoring, encrypting data at rest and in transit, and reviewing security configurations regularly. When these fundamentals are in place, you’re better positioned to take advantage of AI-driven tools and respond to newly discovered vulnerabilities, wherever they come from.

While the concepts that drive security fundamentals are universal, implementing them in your environment is best done with an understanding of the context unique to your organization. That’s why we have a multitude of freely available materials—like the AWS Well-Architected Framework—that you can use to help ask the right questions and implement changes in your environment. We also offer programs like the Security Health Improvement Program (SHIP) to help you improve your security posture through prescriptive guidance and continuous improvement.

SHIP is a no-cost program available to every AWS customer, regardless of support tier. SHIP provides a proven, data-driven methodology to:

• Assess your current security posture using data from your AWS environment
• Identify specific opportunities to improve across 10 core security use cases
• Build a prioritized action plan tailored to your environment
• Establish a mechanism for continuous security improvement

The program is led by AWS Solutions Architects and Technical Account Managers who take you through a personalized report, contextualize findings for your environment, and help you build a prioritized action plan.

Project Glasswing highlights an important shift: AI-powered tools are accelerating the pace of vulnerability discovery, which means organizations need to be prepared to assess and respond to findings and changing situations faster than before. In addition to external factors, as organizations adopt AI—whether deploying foundation models, building agentic workflows, or using AI-powered services—how they implement their security controls must change as well. A strong security foundation is what makes confident AI adoption possible.

Here’s how SHIP helps:

SHIP uses a data-driven methodology to identify opportunities to improve and optimize across 10 core security use cases: threat detection, cloud security posture management, application security testing, configuration management, access governance, vulnerability management, application protection, network security, encryption, and secrets management. The program includes a SHIP assessment to identify critical security findings related to your current security posture, so your team can build a prioritized roadmap for improvement tailored to your environment.

Before you deploy your first model on Amazon Bedrock or build agentic workflows with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore, you need confidence that your underlying infrastructure follows security best practices. SHIP uses actual data from your environment to provide prescriptive, specific guidance rather than generic security recommendations. This is especially relevant as AI-driven vulnerability discovery tools become more widely available: organizations with strong baselines will be able to act on new findings quickly and effectively.

As AI capabilities evolve, organizations benefit from having a repeatable process to assess and strengthen their security posture over time. SHIP establishes the methodology and mechanisms for your team to continuously assess, prioritize, and improve. By building this operational capability, you’re strengthening your organization’s ability to adapt and contributing to broader industry resilience. As the cybersecurity community integrates AI into defense strategies, SHIP helps you maintain foundational best practices so you can adopt these innovations effectively and with confidence.

SHIP is available today, at no cost, to every AWS customer. Here’s how to get started:

1. Talk to your AWS account team. Ask about scheduling a SHIP engagement, or request one directly on the SHIP page.
2. Attend a SHIP Activation Day. AWS regularly hosts hands-on workshops where you can run the SHIP assessment with AWS Solutions Architects and start building your improvement plan.
3. Explore the prescriptive guidance. Consult the AWS Well-Architected Framework – Security Lens for documentation, reference architectures, and implementation guides you can start using today.

AWS is committed to being the most secure cloud, from our participation in Project Glasswing to the security embedded in every layer of our infrastructure. Security is a shared responsibility, and programs like SHIP give customers the tools, guidance, and support to strengthen their security foundations so they can build confidently, no matter what comes next.

Ready to improve your security posture? Contact your AWS account team to schedule a SHIP engagement, or visit the SHIP resources page to learn more.

At AWS, we’ve spent decades developing processes and tools that enable us to defend millions of customers simultaneously, wherever they operate around the world. AI has been an extremely helpful addition to the automation our security and threat intelligence teams do every day, and we’re still early in this journey. Our AI-powered log analysis system has reduced the time SecOps engineers spend analyzing security logs from an average of six hours to just seven minutes, a 50x productivity increase that lets us detect and respond to threats faster than ever. Across AWS, we analyze over 400 trillion network flows per day to detect patterns that signal emerging threats. In 2025 alone, we blocked over 300 million attempts to maliciously encrypt customer files hosted on Amazon S3. At this scale, every improvement in our operations helps protect all customers. AI is already helping us make our defenses stronger for everyone, and I’m excited to see that improvement continue.

Today, Anthropic announced Project Glasswing, a cybersecurity initiative designed to secure the world’s most critical software and advance the cybersecurity practices the industry will need as AI grows more capable. Organizations that build or maintain critical digital infrastructure are getting early access to Claude Mythos Preview, a new class of AI model, to find and patch vulnerabilities in the systems the world depends on. Given our role in securing some of the world’s most essential infrastructure, AWS is playing an integral part in advancing this work.

As part of Project Glasswing, we’ve already applied Claude Mythos Preview to critical AWS codebases that undergo continuous AI-powered security reviews, and even in those well-tested environments, it’s helped us identify additional opportunities to strengthen our code. In our internal testing, Claude Mythos Preview has proven more productive than previous models at surfacing security findings, requiring less manual guidance from our engineers to deliver actionable results. We’ve also given early access to a select group of AWS customers, who are deploying Claude Mythos Preview in their own security workflows and helping shape how the model evolves.

As AI tools grow more powerful in their ability to identify security issues, so must our ability to use them defensively. To that end, we’ve been working closely with Anthropic to help ensure Claude Mythos Preview is ready for enterprise use. AWS is Anthropic’s primary cloud provider for mission-critical workloads, safety research, and foundation model development. More broadly, AWS provides the foundational infrastructure that the world’s leading AI companies rely on to build, train, and deploy their most advanced models. We’re bringing decades of security experience to this partnership, helping to ensure Claude Mythos Preview is ready for even more organizations to build upon and operate securely at scale.

Claude Mythos Preview signals an upcoming wave of models that can find vulnerabilities and build working exploits at a scale and speed we haven’t seen before. Anthropic and AWS are taking a deliberately cautious approach to release. Access begins with a small number of organizations, prioritizing internet-critical companies and open-source maintainers whose software and digital services impact hundreds of millions of users. The goal: find and fix vulnerabilities in the world’s most critical software. Claude Mythos Preview is available in gated research preview through Amazon Bedrock with enterprise-grade security controls, including customer-managed encryption, VPC isolation, and detailed logging, so your team can explore Claude Mythos Preview’s capabilities without exposing production assets to unnecessary risk.

Our work with Project Glasswing is grounded in a philosophy we’ve developed over two decades of securing mission-critical workloads: you can’t wait for threats to materialize before building your defenses. You have to look around corners, adopt new technologies, build protections first, deploy them in your own operations at scale, and refine them based on what you learn.

That’s exactly what we’ve done at AWS with AI and security. Our approach spans the full spectrum: proactive defense through threat hunting and vulnerability research, dynamic response to active campaigns, and third-party certifications that verify our security practices meet the highest industry standards. This operational experience has taught us where AI accelerates security work and where human judgment remains essential. And it’s reinforced that security innovation must be pragmatic: proven in production before we ask you to rely on it.

That’s also why we help define what secure AI looks like. We became the first major cloud provider to achieve ISO 42001 certification for AI services. We’re active participants in OWASP, the Coalition for Secure AI, and the Frontier Model Forum. And we co-founded the Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework (OCSF) to enable better threat intelligence sharing across the ecosystem. The AWS Nitro System provides mathematically proven isolation for workloads. Systems and services like KMS, Nitro, EKS, and Lambda are designed with zero-operator access architectures, meaning AWS personnel can’t access your data. These aren’t aspirational goals. They’re how we operate today, at scale, every day.

Amazon Bedrock is where these principles come to life for AI. Bedrock provides policy-enforced access controls, built-in evaluation tools to measure how effectively models identify and validate vulnerabilities, and the ability to run workloads inside your own virtual private cloud. AWS is also the first cloud provider to achieve FedRAMP High and Department of Defense Security Requirements Guide Impact Level 4 and 5 authorizations for generally available Claude foundation models. Amazon Bedrock is already where the most security-sensitive organizations trust Anthropic’s technology, and it makes perfect sense for Claude Mythos Preview.

The same principles that guide our work at AWS scale apply regardless of which AI tools you’re using: comprehensive observability, defense in depth, automation where it adds value, and human judgment where it’s essential. Here’s how to put them into practice.

Prepare for the next generation of AI security. Claude Mythos Preview signals an upcoming wave of AI models that will transform cybersecurity. Start strengthening your security posture now so your organization is ready as these capabilities become more broadly available. Claude Mythos Preview is available in gated preview through Amazon Bedrock, and access is limited to an initial allow-list of organizations. If your organization has been allow-listed, your AWS account team will reach out directly.

Run on-demand penetration testing with AWS Security Agent. Now generally available, AWS Security Agent delivers autonomous penetration testing that operates 24/7 at a fraction of the cost of manual penetration tests. It transforms penetration testing from a periodic bottleneck into an on-demand capability that scales with your development velocity across AWS, Azure, GCP, other cloud providers, and on-premises. AWS Security Agent represents a new class of frontier agents: autonomous systems that work independently to achieve goals, scale to tackle concurrent tasks, and run persistently without constant human oversight. It deploys specialized AI agents to discover, validate, and report security vulnerabilities through sophisticated multi-step scenarios. Unlike traditional scanners that generate findings without validation, AWS Security Agent identifies potential vulnerabilities, then attempts to exploit them with targeted payloads and attack chains to confirm they are legitimate security risks. Each finding includes CVSS risk scores, application-specific severity ratings, detailed reproduction steps, and remediation suggestions. The result: penetration testing that once took weeks now completes in hours, scales across your entire application portfolio, and helps you get started with remediation instead of leaving you with a report. New customers can explore AWS Security Agent with a 2-month free trial.

Build AI applications you can trust with Amazon Bedrock. For teams building with generative AI, the challenge isn’t just making AI work, it’s making AI work safely. Amazon Bedrock provides the security and safety controls you need to deploy AI responsibly. Its Automated Reasoning capability is the first and only AI safeguard to use formal logic to help prevent factual errors from hallucinations, providing verifiable explanations with 99% accuracy, a capability we’ve refined over more than a decade of applying formal methods across AWS storage, identity, and networking. Amazon Bedrock also provides customizable guardrails that block harmful content and enforce your content policies, along with comprehensive observability to track AI behavior and detect anomalies across your workloads.

The threat landscape isn’t waiting for us to catch up. Nation-state actors, ransomware operators, and supply chain attackers are already using AI to scale their operations. Our job is to stay ahead by building defenses first, deploying them at scale, and sharing what we learn so the entire community benefits.

That’s what we do every day at AWS. We build in security from the start, ensuring it works and scales before we ask customers to rely on it. We set standards rather than follow them. And we look around corners to address tomorrow’s challenges today.

As AI capabilities continue to evolve, this approach won’t change. We’ll keep building defenses first, refining them at scale, and working with partners like Anthropic to ensure the next generation of AI security tools meets the real-world needs of enterprises defending at this scale.

• Get started with AWS Security Agent
• Explore Amazon Bedrock Guardrails for AI content safety
• See how we’re Securing AI at AWS
• Learn about AWS Responsible AI
• Read about AWS AI Compliance
• Review our AWS Security Bulletins on emerging threats

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.

Commercial AI services are enabling even unsophisticated threat actors to conduct cyberattacks at scale—a trend Amazon Threat Intelligence has been tracking closely. A recent investigation illustrates this shift: Amazon Threat Intelligence observed a Russian-speaking financially motivated threat actor leveraging multiple commercial generative AI services to compromise over 600 FortiGate devices across more than 55 countries from January 11 to February 18, 2026. No exploitation of FortiGate vulnerabilities was observed—instead, this campaign succeeded by exploiting exposed management ports and weak credentials with single-factor authentication, fundamental security gaps that AI helped an unsophisticated actor exploit at scale. This activity is distinguished by the threat actor’s use of multiple commercial GenAI services to implement and scale well-known attack techniques throughout every phase of their operations, despite their limited technical capabilities. AWS infrastructure was not observed to be involved in this campaign. Amazon Threat Intelligence is sharing these findings to help the broader security community defend against this activity.

This investigation highlights how commercial AI services can lower the technical barrier to entry for offensive cyber capabilities. The threat actor in this campaign is not known to be associated with any advanced persistent threat group with state-sponsored resources. They are likely a financially motivated individual or small group who, through AI augmentation, achieved an operational scale that would have previously required a significantly larger and more skilled team. Yet, based on our analysis of public sources, they successfully compromised multiple organizations’ Active Directory environments, extracted complete credential databases, and targeted backup infrastructure, a potential precursor to ransomware deployment. Notably, when this actor encountered hardened environments or more sophisticated defensive measures, they simply moved on to softer targets rather than persisting, underscoring that their advantage lies in AI-augmented efficiency and scale, not in deeper technical skill.

As we expect this trend to continue in 2026, organizations should anticipate that AI-augmented threat activity will continue to grow in volume from both skilled and unskilled adversaries. Strong defensive fundamentals remain the most effective countermeasure: patch management for perimeter devices, credential hygiene, network segmentation, and robust detection for post-exploitation indicators.

Through routine threat intelligence operations, Amazon Threat Intelligence identified infrastructure hosting malicious tooling associated with this campaign. The threat actor had staged additional operational files on the same publicly accessible infrastructure, including AI-generated attack plans, victim configurations, and source code for custom tooling. This inadequate operational security provided comprehensive visibility into the threat actor’s methodologies and the specific ways they leverage AI throughout their operations. It’s like an AI-powered assembly line for cybercrime, helping less skilled workers produce at scale.

The threat actor compromised globally dispersed FortiGate appliances, extracting full device configurations that yielded credentials, network topology information, and device configuration information. They then used these stolen credentials to connect to victim internal networks and conduct post-exploitation activities including Active Directory compromise, credential harvesting, and attempts to access backup infrastructure, consistent with pre-ransomware operations.

The threat actor’s initial access vector was credential-based access to FortiGate management interfaces exposed to the internet. Analysis of the actor’s tooling supported systematic scanning for management interfaces across ports 443, 8443, 10443, and 4443, followed by authentication attempts using commonly reused credentials.

FortiGate configuration files represent high-value targets because they contain:

• SSL-VPN user credentials with recoverable passwords
• Administrative credentials
• Complete network topology and routing information
• Firewall policies revealing internal architecture
• IPsec VPN peer configurations

The threat actor developed AI-assisted Python scripts to parse, decrypt, and organize these stolen configurations.

The campaign’s targeting appears opportunistic rather than sector-specific, consistent with automated mass scanning for vulnerable appliances. However, certain patterns suggest organizational-level compromise where multiple FortiGate devices belonging to the same entity were accessed. Amazon Threat Intelligence observed clusters where contiguous IP blocks or shared non-standard management ports indicated managed service provider deployments or large organizational networks. Concentrations of compromised devices were observed across South Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, West Africa, Northern Europe, and Southeast Asia, among other regions.

Following VPN access to victim networks, the threat actor deploys a custom reconnaissance tool, with different versions written in both Go and Python. Analysis of the source code reveals clear indicators of AI-assisted development: redundant comments that merely restate function names, simplistic architecture with disproportionate investment in formatting over functionality, naive JSON parsing via string matching rather than proper deserialization, and compatibility shims for language built-ins with empty documentation stubs. While functional for the threat actor’s specific use case, the tooling lacks robustness and fails under edge cases—characteristics typical of AI-generated code used without significant refinement.

The tool automates the post-VPN reconnaissance workflow:

1. Ingesting target networks from VPN routing tables
2. Classifying networks by size
3. Running service discovery using gogo, an open-source port scanner
4. Automatically identifying SMB hosts and domain controllers
5. Integrating vulnerability scanning using Nuclei, an open-source vulnerability scanner, against discovered HTTP services to produce prioritized target lists.

Once inside victim networks, the threat actor follows a standard approach leveraging well-known open-source offensive tools.

Domain compromise: The threat actor’s operational documentation details the intended use of Meterpreter, an open-source post-exploitation toolkit, with the mimikatz module to perform DCSync attacks against domain controllers. This allowed the actor to extract NTLM password hashes from Active Directory. In confirmed compromises, the attacker obtained complete domain credential databases. In at least one case, the Domain Administrator account used a plaintext password that was either extracted from the FortiGate configuration through password reuse or was independently weak.

Lateral movement: Following domain compromise, the threat actor attempts to expand access through pass-the-hash/pass-the-ticket attacks against additional infrastructure, NTLM relay attacks using standard poisoning tools, and remote command execution on Windows hosts.

Backup infrastructure targeting: The threat actor specifically targeted Veeam Backup & Replication servers, deploying multiple tools for extracting credentials, including PowerShell scripts, compiled decryption tools, and exploitation attempts leveraging known Veeam vulnerabilities. Backup servers represent high-value targets because they typically store elevated credentials for backup operations, and compromising backup infrastructure positions an attacker to destroy recovery capabilities before deploying ransomware.

Limited exploitation success: The threat actor’s operational notes reference multiple CVEs across various targets (CVE-2019-7192, CVE-2023-27532, and CVE-2024-40711, among others). However, a critical finding from this analysis is that the threat actor largely failed when attempting to exploit anything beyond the most straightforward, automated attack paths. Their own documentation records repeated failures: targeted services were patched, required ports were closed, vulnerabilities didn’t apply to the target OS versions, . Their final operational assessment for one confirmed victim acknowledged that key infrastructure targets were “well-protected” with “no vulnerable exploitation vectors.”

Amazon Threat Intelligence analysis revealed that the actor uses at least two distinct commercial LLM providers throughout their operations.

AI-generated attack planning: The threat actor used AI to generate comprehensive attack methodologies complete with step-by-step exploitation instructions, expected success rates, time estimates, and prioritized task trees. These plans reference academic research on offensive AI agents, suggesting the actor follows emerging literature on AI-assisted penetration testing. The AI produces technically accurate command sequences, but the actor struggles to adapt when conditions differ from the plan. They cannot compile custom exploits, debug failed exploitation attempts, or creatively pivot when standard approaches fail.

Multi-model operational workflow: Amazon Threat Intelligence identified the actor using multiple AI services in complementary roles. One serves as the primary tool developer, attack planner, and operational assistant. A second is used as a supplementary attack planner when the actor needs help pivoting within a specific compromised network. In one observed instance, the actor submitted the complete internal topology of an active victim—IP addresses, hostnames, confirmed credentials, and identified services—and requested a step-by-step plan to compromise additional systems they could not access with their existing tools.

AI-generated tooling at scale: Beyond the reconnaissance framework, the actor’s infrastructure contains numerous scripts in multiple programming languages bearing hallmarks of AI generation, including configuration parsers, credential extraction tools, VPN connection automation, mass scanning orchestration, and result aggregation dashboards. The volume and variety of custom tooling would typically indicate a well-resourced development team. Instead, a single actor or very small group generated this entire toolkit through AI-assisted development.

Based on comprehensive analysis, Amazon Threat Intelligence assesses this threat actor as follows:

• Motivation: Suspected financially motivated, based on widespread, indiscriminate targeting and low sophistication
• Language: Russian-speaking, based on extensive Russian-language operational documentation
• Skill level: Low-to-medium baseline technical capability, significantly augmented by AI. The actor can run standard offensive tools and automate routine tasks but struggles with exploit compilation, custom development, and creative problem-solving during live operations
• AI dependency: Extensive reliance across all operational phases. AI is used for tool development, attack planning, command generation, and operational reporting across multiple commercial LLM providers
• Operational scale: Broad. Compromised devices across dozens of countries, with evidence of sustained operations over an extended period
• Post-exploitation depth: Shallow. Repeated failures against hardened or non-standard targets, with a pattern of moving on rather than persisting when automated approaches fail
• Operational security: Inadequate. Detailed operational plans, credentials, and victim data stored without encryption alongside tooling

Amazon Threat Intelligence remains committed to helping protect customers and the broader internet ecosystem by actively investigating and disrupting threat actors.

Upon discovering this campaign, Amazon Threat Intelligence took the following actions:

• Shared actionable intelligence, including indicators of compromise, with relevant partners
• Collaborated with industry partners to broaden visibility into the campaign and support coordinated defense efforts

Through these efforts, Amazon helped reduce the threat actor’s operational effectiveness and enabled organizations across multiple countries to take steps to disrupt the efficacy of the campaign.

This campaign succeeded through a combination of exposed management interfaces, weak credentials, and single-factor authentication—all fundamental security gaps that AI helped an unsophisticated actor exploit at scale. This underscores that strong security fundamentals are powerful defenses against AI-augmented threats. Organizations should review and implement the following.

Organizations running FortiGate appliances should take immediate action:

• Ensure management interfaces are not exposed to the internet. If remote administration is required, restrict access to known IP ranges and use a bastion host or out-of-band management network
• Change all default and common credentials on FortiGate appliances, including administrative and VPN user accounts
• Rotate all SSL-VPN user credentials, particularly for any appliance whose management interface was or may have been internet-accessible
• Implement multi-factor authentication for all administrative and VPN access
• Review FortiGate configurations for unauthorized administrative accounts or policy changes
• Audit VPN connection logs for connections from unexpected geographic locations

Given the extraction of credentials from FortiGate configurations:

• Audit for password reuse between FortiGate VPN credentials and Active Directory domain accounts
• Implement multi-factor authentication for all VPN access
• Enforce unique, complex passwords for all accounts, particularly Domain Administrator accounts
• Review and rotate service account credentials, especially those used in backup infrastructure

Organizations that may have been affected should monitor for:

• Unexpected DCSync operations (Event ID 4662 with replication-related GUIDs)
• New scheduled tasks named to mimic legitimate Windows services
• Unusual remote management connections from VPN address pools
• LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning artifacts in network traffic
• Unauthorized access to backup credential stores
• New accounts with names designed to blend with legitimate service accounts

The threat actor’s focus on backup infrastructure highlights the importance of:

• Isolating backup servers from general network access
• Patching backup software against known credential extraction vulnerabilities
• Monitoring for unauthorized PowerShell module loading on backup servers
• Implementing immutable backup copies that cannot be modified even with administrative access

For organizations using AWS:

• Enable Amazon GuardDuty for threat detection, including monitoring for unusual API calls and credential usage patterns
• Use Amazon Inspector to automatically scan for software vulnerabilities and unintended network exposure
• Use AWS Security Hub to maintain continuous visibility into your security posture
• Use AWS Systems Manager Patch Manager to maintain patching compliance across EC2 instances running network appliances
• Review IAM access patterns for signs of credential replay following any suspected network device compromise

This campaign’s reliance on legitimate open-source tools—including Impacket, gogo, Nuclei, and others—means that traditional IOC-based detection has limited effectiveness. These tools are widely used by penetration testers and security professionals, and their presence alone is not indicative of compromise. Organizations should investigate context around matches, prioritizing behavioral detection (anomalous VPN authentication patterns, unexpected Active Directory replication, lateral movement from VPN address pools) over signature-based approaches.