You want to set a cryptographic algorithm policy and stop non-compliant choices from being made in your Amazon Web Services (AWS) environment. This post shows you how. As you adopt post-quantum cryptography, one of the first decisions you face is which algorithms and parameter sets fit your business needs, balancing security against signature size, key size, and performance. Your cloud environment’s job is to let you express that decision and enforce it consistently, so an approved choice stays fully usable while an excluded one cannot be introduced. This post works through one concrete example on AWS: taking an organization’s cryptographic algorithm policy and turning it into preventive and detective controls. The same patterns apply to whatever your approved set is today and whatever it becomes as standards evolve.

This post is Part 2 of a two-part series on quantum-resistant signing on AWS. Part 1, Build a software supply chain with ML-DSA, is for builders and constructs an end-to-end ML-DSA signing pipeline for binaries, container images, and software bills of materials. This part is for the security, governance, and compliance teams who decide which algorithms that pipeline, and everything else in the organization, is permitted to use, and who need that decision enforced.

AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) supports the ML-DSA digital signature scheme (FIPS 204) through three parameter sets, ML-DSA-44, ML-DSA-65, and ML-DSA-87, targeting NIST security categories 2, 3, and 5. All three are strong, standardized choices. Each one trades signature size, key size, and speed against security margin, the amount of cryptographic strength a parameter set holds in reserve above its target security category. ML-DSA-44 is the most compact and fastest. ML-DSA-65 and ML-DSA-87 carry a larger security margin, which is what you want for signatures that must stay trustworthy over a long lifetime.

Throughout this post, the examples use the same example policy: an organization that has standardized on ML-DSA-65 and ML-DSA-87 and wants ML-DSA-44 kept out of its approved set. That is a standardization decision, not a judgment that ML-DSA-44 is insecure (see the following note). Wherever you see ML-DSA-44 in the controls that follow, read it as the variant your policy doesn’t include; the mechanics are identical for any allow/deny split you choose. The approved set here is also the one the Part 1 architecture deploys: ML-DSA-87 for the root certificate authority (CA) and ML-DSA-65 for the subordinate CA and the code-signing key. Part 1 makes the choice; this post makes it stick.

Note: ML-DSA-44 is a valid choice. ML-DSA-44 is a fully NIST-standardized parameter set (FIPS 204) at NIST security category 2, which targets roughly 128-bit-class classical security (category 2 is benchmarked against the collision resistance of SHA-256). It produces the smallest signatures and public keys of the three variants (a 1312-byte public key and 2420-byte signature) and is the fastest to sign and verify, which makes it a strong fit for constrained devices, high-volume signing, and bandwidth- or storage-sensitive workloads. You would choose ML-DSA-65 or ML-DSA-87 instead to gain extra security margin for long-lived signatures or to align with an internal standard, not because ML-DSA-44 is weak.

The approved variants (ML-DSA-65 and ML-DSA-87 in the example) remain fully usable throughout. What you want to rule out is the introduction of a variant outside the policy (here, ML-DSA-44). Concretely, within the AWS service surfaces in scope, principals shouldn’t be able to:

• Create ML-DSA-44 key material
• Use existing ML-DSA-44 keys for signing or verification
• Stand up private certificate authorities (CAs) that would introduce ML-DSA-44.

And any drift from those settings should be detected.

These controls operate on AWS service APIs, principally AWS KMS, AWS Private Certificate Authority (AWS Private CA), and AWS Certificate Manager (ACM). They don’t and can’t govern cryptography that runs on compute you control. For example, OpenSSL or an application might perform ML-DSA-44 signing on an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) instance, container, or AWS Lambda function. Protocol-level use, such as OpenSSH’s hybrid ssh-mldsa44-ed25519 public key authentication, is also outside the reach of Service control policies (SCPs) and AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) and isn’t addressed in this post.

Certificate material brought in through acm:ImportCertificate or iam:UploadServerCertificate is also not algorithm-aware (see the Private CA section). Other TLS-terminating or signing services (for example Amazon CloudFront and Amazon API Gateway) and AWS IAM Roles Anywhere aren’t covered in this post and should be assessed separately. (Part 1 of this series uses IAM Roles Anywhere with ML-DSA certificates; controls for that service are out of scope here.)

These controls are intended to be applied as defense in depth. You can apply all of them or only a subset, depending on how prescriptive you want to be:

• A blanket SCP at the organization root prevents member accounts from creating or using ML-DSA-44 keys. (SCPs don’t apply to the management account, so workloads there aren’t restricted.)
• An SCP at a production organizational unit (OU) restricts keys only in production accounts.
• If you need flexibility inside an account, use IAM permission boundaries instead of account-wide settings enforced through an SCP.

Choose the combination that matches your operating model. The policy examples here are written to apply across all AWS Regions. If you need to scope a control to specific Regions, add an aws:RequestedRegion condition.

The policies in this post are illustrative starting points. Authoring, validating, and maintaining the specific SCPs, IAM policies, and permission boundaries for your environment is your responsibility. Test all policies in a non-production environment before deployment and adjust example values (such as policy names and key Amazon Resource Names (ARNs)) to match your organization’s approved standards.

Your algorithm policy isn’t fixed forever, and these controls shouldn’t be either. The point of expressing the policy as AWS controls is that you can revise it as your needs and the relevant standards change, tightening, loosening, or swapping the approved set without re-architecting. Treat the examples here as a template you adjust to whatever your current policy is.

A deny-based control that names specific algorithms is, in effect, an allow-list of everything it does not name. The risk is default-allow: any parameter set you have not explicitly denied is permitted, so a newly introduced variant, including one you have not yet evaluated, becomes usable until you notice it and add it to the deny list. Deprecation of an already-approved variant is easy to handle in this model, because you simply add the deprecated variant to the deny list. What the model does not catch on its own is the arrival of something new. Review these controls periodically and pair the deny-list with detection so a variant outside your policy surfaces quickly rather than waiting to be discovered.

The alternative is to write the condition against the approved set rather than the excluded one. A Deny that uses StringNotEquals with a list of approved key specs fires when the request’s key spec matches none of them, so a new or not-yet-evaluated variant is blocked by default until you add it. That closes the default-allow gap, at the cost of a policy update before anyone can use a newly approved variant. The family-level SCP in Part 1 of this series takes this shape: it denies creation of any signing key whose key spec isn’t ML_DSA_*. The examples in this post take the other shape and name the excluded variant, so that approved variants stay usable without a policy change. Both are valid. Choose based on whether you would rather block something new first and approve it later, or notice it first and decide then.

{
  "Sid": "OnlyApprovedMlDsaVariants",
  "Effect": "Deny",
  "Action": "kms:CreateKey",
  "Resource": "*",
  "Condition": {
    "StringLike": {
      "kms:KeySpec": "ML_DSA_*"
    },
    "StringNotEquals": {
      "kms:KeySpec": ["ML_DSA_65", "ML_DSA_87"]
    }
  }
}

The StringLike clause scopes the statement to ML-DSA key specs so it doesn’t affect other key types; the StringNotEquals clause denies any ML-DSA variant outside the approved list.

Just as algorithms and key sizes will be introduced over time, or move from approved to unapproved, so will AWS service operations. The set of operations through which an ML-DSA-44 key can be used today (AWS KMS Sign, Verify, and GetPublicKey) reflects current service capabilities and might expand as AWS releases new features. If your policy is to block use in addition to creation, you should periodically review the list of operations you restrict, because services evolve over time.

AWS KMS support for ML-DSA introduces three key specs—ML_DSA_44, ML_DSA_65, and ML_DSA_87—that all use a single post-quantum signing algorithm: ML_DSA_SHAKE_256. This distinction drives which controls are effective.

1. kms:KeySpec: Reflects the KeySpec property of the key. It’s evaluated both on CreateKey (the requested key spec) and on AWS KMS key resource operations that act on a specific key, including Sign, Verify, and GetPublicKey. This makes kms:KeySpec a reliable lever for both preventing creation of ML-DSA-44 keys and restricting use of existing ones, because it can single out ML_DSA_44 from ML_DSA_65 and ML_DSA_87.
2. kms:SigningAlgorithm: Reflects the signing algorithm supplied on Sign and Verify, which is ML_DSA_SHAKE_256 for all three variants. It therefore can’t distinguish ML-DSA-44 from the approved variants and shouldn’t be used for this purpose.

The practical consequence: for keys held in AWS KMS, preventing ML-DSA-44 key material from being created is the most robust single control. If no ML-DSA-44 KMS keys exist, none can be used for signing through AWS KMS and none can become the subject key of a certificate. CA keys and TLS server keys are separate material: AWS Private CA generates and holds a CA’s key pair in its own HSMs, and ACM-issued, imported, or uploaded TLS certificates carry their own keys, so those surfaces are governed by the AWS Private CA and certificate controls later in this post. Where ML-DSA-44 KMS keys already exist, their use can additionally be restricted with kms:KeySpec.

SCPs can be applied at the organization root or to a specific OU to restrict ML-DSA-44. Placement determines the effective scope: it applies organization-wide when attached at the root; attached to an OU, it applies to the accounts within that OU. An SCP is the broadest-scope preventive control available.

Note that SCPs apply to member accounts and OUs but not to the organization’s management account, so avoid running ML-DSA-44-capable workloads in the management account, where an SCP will not restrict them.

The following example SCP denies both the creation of ML-DSA-44 keys (kms:CreateKey) and their use (kms:Sign, kms:Verify, kms:GetPublicKey), matching on the ML_DSA_44 key spec in each case. The creation deny stops new keys from being created; the usage deny covers keys that already exist, whether created before the SCP was attached or living in an account that later joins the OU, because kms:KeySpec is also evaluated at request time on those usage operations.SCPs are guardrails: a Deny in an SCP can’t be overridden by any IAM policy within member accounts.

Attach the following SCP at the organization root (or relevant OU):

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "DenyMLDSA44KeyCreation",
      "Effect": "Deny",
      "Action": "kms:CreateKey",
      "Resource": "*",
      "Condition": {
        "StringEquals": {
          "kms:KeySpec": "ML_DSA_44"
        }
      }
    },
    {
      "Sid": "DenyMLDSA44KeyUsage",
      "Effect": "Deny",
      "Action": [
        "kms:Sign",
        "kms:Verify",
        "kms:GetPublicKey"
      ],
      "Resource": "*",
      "Condition": {
        "StringEquals": {
          "kms:KeySpec": "ML_DSA_44"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

Scope the usage deny to the three key-spec-aware actions. Limit the use of Deny to kms:Sign, kms:Verify, and kms:GetPublicKey (testing confirmed kms:KeySpec is evaluated on all three). Avoid a blanket kms:*: a wildcard that would also catch management operations such as DescribeKey, DisableKey, and ScheduleKeyDeletion, which you need to inspect or clean up those same keys, effectively locking you out of managing the keys you’re trying to remove. If you use multi-Region keys, also add kms:ReplicateKey to the creation deny: replicating an ML-DSA-44 primary key creates a new ML-DSA-44 key in another Region, and kms:KeySpec is evaluated on ReplicateKey as well.

Combining with a family-level guardrail. This SCP governs which ML-DSA parameter set is allowed; it says nothing about RSA or ECDSA. Part 1 of this series includes a complementary SCP that denies creation of any signing key whose key spec isn’t ML-DSA. Attached together, they require every new signing key to be ML-DSA and to be an approved variant.

Operational considerations. A blanket Deny at the organization root is the strongest control but has trade-offs: it removes any ability to create ML-DSA-44 keys anywhere in scope, with no exception path, which can block legitimate testing and might cause infrastructure as code (IaC) or pipeline runs that attempt ML-DSA-44 creation to fail. To preserve flexibility, consider scoping the Deny to a production OU and using IAM permission boundaries (see the following section) in build and non-production accounts.

What the caller sees. When an SCP denies a request, the caller receives an AccessDenied error indicating an explicit deny in a service control policy. For same-account and same-organization requests, the error includes the type of the denying policy and, as the enhanced error messages roll out across services, its ARN. The error doesn’t expose the SCP policy contents, and the user being blocked often can’t see the SCPs applied to their environment. Document the SCP ARN and its purpose internally so support teams can map an AccessDenied quickly.

The following IAM policy blocks ML-DSA-44 at the principal level. It is the identity-based counterpart to the SCP shown earlier, useful when you want per-account or per-role control rather than an organization-wide guardrail. Attach it to the IAM role or user you want to constrain.

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "DenyMLDSA44KeyCreation",
      "Effect": "Deny",
      "Action": "kms:CreateKey",
      "Resource": "*",
      "Condition": {
        "StringEquals": {
          "kms:KeySpec": "ML_DSA_44"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

1. The condition value is ML_DSA_44 (underscores, not hyphens).
2. This policy blocks CreateKey only. To also block use of existing ML-DSA-44 keys at the principal level, add the Sign, Verify, and GetPublicKey deny shown in the Restricting use of existing ML-DSA-44 keys section.
3. For comprehensive, non-overridable coverage, deploy as an SCP rather than relying solely on principal-level policies.

IAM permission boundaries set the maximum permissions an identity-based policy can grant to an IAM role or user and can be used as an alternative or complement to using SCPs. The effective permissions are the intersection of the identity-based policy and the boundary, and a Deny in a boundary can’t be overridden by an attached policy. Boundaries are useful where you want per-account or per-role flexibility (for example, in build or non-production accounts) rather than a blanket, multi-account deny.

Operational consideration. A permission boundary only takes effect on principals that have it attached. To rely on boundaries as a control, you need a mechanism to enforce the boundary on all IAM principals programmatically. One example enforcement mechanism would be an SCP that denies iam:CreateRole, iam:CreateUser, iam:PutRolePermissionsBoundary, and iam:PutUserPermissionsBoundary unless the approved boundary is set (using the iam:PermissionsBoundary condition key), and denies iam:DeleteRolePermissionsBoundary and iam:DeleteUserPermissionsBoundary outright so the boundary can’t be removed after the fact. You would also want to probe for non-conforming principals periodically and respond, perhaps by automatically attaching the PermissionsBoundary. IAM users shouldn’t be used, but the enforcement should account for the possibility that they exist.

Because a boundary only sets a ceiling and does not itself grant anything, it opens with Allow on all actions, then denies ML-DSA-44 key creation specifically. The following permission boundary denies creation of ML-DSA-44 keys:

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "AllowAll",
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": "*",
      "Resource": "*"
    },
    {
      "Sid": "DenyMLDSA44KeyCreation",
      "Effect": "Deny",
      "Action": "kms:CreateKey",
      "Resource": "*",
      "Condition": {
        "StringEquals": {
          "kms:KeySpec": "ML_DSA_44"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

To also block use of existing ML-DSA-44 keys for the principals carrying this boundary, add the Sign, Verify, and GetPublicKey deny statement shown in the following section (which also uses kms:KeySpec).

As described in the Background section, kms:KeySpec is also evaluated on Sign, Verify, and GetPublicKey, reflecting the KeySpec of the key being used. You can therefore deny those operations when kms:KeySpec equals ML_DSA_44 while continuing to permit ML_DSA_65 and ML_DSA_87. The IAM policy below, attached to an IAM principal, does exactly that.

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "DenyMLDSA44KeyUsage",
      "Effect": "Deny",
      "Action": [
        "kms:Sign",
        "kms:Verify",
        "kms:GetPublicKey"
      ],
      "Resource": "*",
      "Condition": {
        "StringEquals": {
          "kms:KeySpec": "ML_DSA_44"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

This deny can also live in an AWS KMS key policy. The same kms:KeySpec deny can be placed directly in the key policy of an AWS KMS key. A key policy is a resource policy, so the statement must include a Principal element. Identity policies and SCPs do not name principals to which they apply. A deny in the key policy is a resource-side backstop that protects a specific key, while an SCP gives non-overridable organization-wide coverage. To turn the previous example into an AWS KMS key policy, add a Principal element to the statement (for example "Principal": {"AWS": "*"}, or a more specific principal), and keep the rest of it the same.

Depending on your goals you might also want to remove the key material itself rather than only deny its use. Remember that it is difficult to know what data has been signed by a specific key, unless you track that somehow. Deleting a key that was used will make signature verification impossible. Take great care to make sure keys are not used before deleting them.

1. Disable or schedule deletion of the keys. Disabling stops key use immediately and is reversible. Key deletion is definitive but irreversible after the waiting period, so confirm before scheduling.
2. Deny Sign, Verify, and GetPublicKey by specific key ARN. You can target named keys rather than the whole key spec. To do this, you would list the exact key ARNs in the Resource element of the IAM policy (no condition key required). This is effective for targeting a single key specifically, but it is difficult to maintain lists of key ARNs. Use this strategy sparingly. If you’re considering using an IAM policy naming a key ARN, remember that a Deny in the key policy of the target key accomplishes the same goal and is attached to the key itself.
3. Finding existing keys (only needed if you disable or delete). A Deny in an IAM policy or SCP, based on kms:KeySpec, doesn’t require you to know which keys exist – it applies by key spec at request time. If you want to disable or delete existing ML-DSA-44 keys, you need to locate them. AWS KMS has no server-side filter for key spec, so you must enumerate keys with ListKeys and call DescribeKey and inspect each KeySpec. This client-side filtering pattern is common across AWS APIs and is well supported by pagination in the AWS SDKs. You can also use AWS Config to record and query KMS key resources.

Reference: Choosing a KMS key spec – kms:KeySpec condition key

AWS Private CA sets a certificate authority’s (CA’s) signing algorithm at creation time, in the CertificateAuthorityConfiguration parameter of CreateCertificateAuthority (valid values include ML_DSA_44, ML_DSA_65, and ML_DSA_87). There is currently no condition key for the algorithm, so an SCP cannot enforce signing algorithm. The approach in this section controls who can create CAs and pins the algorithm in that trusted path, backed by AWS CloudTrail-based detection.

1. Restrict who can create CAs. Deny acm-pca:CreateCertificateAuthority broadly via SCP, and allow it only for a small set of trusted roles or an approved provisioning pipeline. This removes the ability for arbitrary principals to stand up a CA with an unapproved algorithm.
2. Pin the algorithm in the trusted path. Have that approved pipeline or infrastructure-as-code template hard-code SigningAlgorithm to ML_DSA_65 or ML_DSA_87 in CertificateAuthorityConfiguration. Because AWS Private CA exposes no algorithm condition key, this provisioning path is the enforcement point. Note that the CA’s algorithm pins the signature on the certificates it issues; the subject key in each certificate comes from the CSR, which AWS Private CA copies without validating its algorithm, so pin the CSR key algorithm in the same issuance pipeline.
3. Control the trust chain. On the PKI side, only add approved CAs to your trust stores and issuance hierarchies, and do not trust or subordinate CAs that could issue ML-DSA-44. This prevents an unapproved CA from being introduced into a trusted path.
4. Detect drift. Use CloudTrail to capture CreateCertificateAuthority calls and AWS Config to flag any CA whose configuration uses ML_DSA_44, so an unapproved CA is caught quickly.

Part 1 of this series shows what this looks like in practice: it creates an ML-DSA-87 root CA and an ML-DSA-65 subordinate CA with CreateCertificateAuthority, activates them, and distributes the resulting chain to verifiers. In the model described here, those are the calls that only your approved provisioning pipeline is allowed to make.

Setting the ML-DSA value in CertificateAuthorityConfiguration. The same variant goes in both the KeyAlgorithm and SigningAlgorithm fields (for example, KeyAlgorithm=ML_DSA_65 with SigningAlgorithm=ML_DSA_65). Note a difference in signing algorithms between AWS KMS and AWS Private CA. With AWS Private CA, the SigningAlgorithm takes the variant value directly (ML_DSA_44, ML_DSA_65, and ML_DSA_87), and doesn’t accept ML_DSA_SHAKE_256. In contrast, AWS KMS uses ML_DSA_SHAKE_256 as its signing algorithm. Be aware that some older AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) builds omitted descriptions of the ML-DSA variants from the built-in CLI help, so don’t rely on the help in the AWS CLI to determine valid values. For more information, see CertificateAuthorityConfiguration API Reference.

Known limitation. Some surfaces have no algorithm condition key, so you enforce them through provisioning and detection rather than policy. acm-pca:CreateCertificateAuthority has no condition key for the algorithm, and acm:ImportCertificate and iam:UploadServerCertificate are not algorithm-aware, so a disallowed signature setting on a created, imported, or uploaded certificate cannot be blocked by an IAM policy or SCP condition. Govern these through your provisioning process, restrict who can call them, and deny the import and upload actions entirely where they are not required. The controls above remain the available mitigation.

In particular, iam:UploadServerCertificate doesn’t support any method to prevent use of particular algorithms, and AWS doesn’t recommend using this API to generate and upload certificates. This API predates ACM and exists mainly to cover AWS Regions or partitions where ACM is not yet available. While a new Region or partition is being built out, workloads can still need a TLS server certificate before ACM support has shipped there, and uploading a certificate to IAM gives you a place to store and reference it in the meantime. Once ACM is available in that Region, you should use ACM instead. Outside that narrow case, deny iam:UploadServerCertificate unless it is genuinely required.

ACM-issued leaf certificates. A CA’s own key and signing algorithm are separate from the leaf certificates that ACM issues from it. If you use ACM to request leaf certificates, you can constrain the leaf’s key algorithm with the acm:KeyAlgorithm condition key on acm:RequestCertificate. This lets you allow-list approved algorithms for leaf certificates using SCPs or IAM policies, similar to the AWS KMS examples earlier in this post. Be aware that, at the time of writing, ACM doesn’t offer ML-DSA leaf certificates. So a policy like this is a forward-looking defense-in-depth control rather than an immediate ML-DSA-44 risk. The IAM example below is illustrative (using example approved algorithms). Since this is an evolving part of the service, be sure to validate this in your environment before relying on it.

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "RestrictACMLeafKeyAlgorithm",
      "Effect": "Deny",
      "Action": "acm:RequestCertificate",
      "Resource": "*",
      "Condition": {
        "StringNotEqualsIfExists": {
          "acm:KeyAlgorithm": [
            "EC_secp384r1",
            "RSA_2048"
          ]
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

This example uses StringNotEqualsIfExists so it denies only requests that specify a disallowed algorithm. With plain StringNotEquals, a request that omits acm:KeyAlgorithm would also be denied, because the missing key makes the condition evaluate true. Choose the operator that matches whether you want to block requests that leave the algorithm unspecified.

Elastic Load Balancing, for both network load balancers (NLB) and application load balancers (ALB), terminates TLS on behalf of your applications. The certificates used by these listeners are requested through or imported into ACM, or uploaded to IAM. A listener’s configured security policy and its certificate determine what’s offered during negotiation. At the time of writing, ACM requests and imports accept RSA and ECDSA keys only, and NLB and ALB listeners accept RSA and ECDSA certificates only, so no ML-DSA certificate can be bound to a listener today. As with the ACM leaf-certificate policy earlier, the controls in this section are forward-looking defense in depth rather than a mitigation of an immediate ML-DSA-44 risk.

Because the listener API calls reference a certificate only by ARN, you can’t write an SCP on CreateListener, ModifyListener, or AddListenerCertificates that inspects the certificate’s algorithm. IAM conditions can’t reference attributes of a separately-referenced resource. Keeping ML-DSA-44 out of TLS therefore relies on there being no ML-DSA-44 certificate material to associate:

1. Configure your private CA to issue only ML_DSA_65 or ML_DSA_87 certificates, and control who can create CAs.
2. Prevent ML-DSA-44 key creation in AWS KMS, so that no KMS-held ML-DSA-44 key can become the subject key of a certificate. TLS server keys for ACM-issued, imported, or uploaded certificates are not KMS keys; those are governed by items 1 and 3.
3. Control imported and uploaded certificates through your provisioning process or deny the import and upload actions where not required, as described in the AWS Private CA section.

CloudTrail records the certificate and listener API calls in this section: certificate creation and import (acm-pca:CreateCertificateAuthority, acm:ImportCertificate, iam:UploadServerCertificate) and listener configuration (CreateListener, ModifyListener, AddListenerCertificates). Whether the algorithm shows up in the event depends on what the call itself carries. Creation calls that take the algorithm as an input record it: kms:CreateKey logs the KeySpec, and acm-pca:CreateCertificateAuthority logs the signing algorithm. That makes CloudTrail effective for catching the creation of ML-DSA-44 key material or a CA. A listener binding references its certificate only by ARN, so the certificate’s algorithm does not appear in that event. To evaluate the algorithm of a bound or imported certificate, use AWS Config resource evaluation as the detective backstop.

The primary preventive control is the certificate material itself: with no ML-DSA-44 CA, no ML-DSA-44 KMS key, and certificate import and upload controlled, no ML-DSA-44 certificate can be issued or bound. Where you also operate an allow-list of permitted TLS security policies, the elasticloadbalancing:SecurityPolicy condition key (on CreateListener and ModifyListener) can additionally constrain which TLS policies listeners can use.

The following table maps the example policy (allow ML-DSA-65 or ML-DSA-87, exclude ML-DSA-44) to the available controls. Modify the controls to limit use to the approved set of algorithms your policies require.

In this post, you learned how to use ML-DSA as an example of turning a cryptographic algorithm policy into enforceable AWS controls. The key lever is the kms:KeySpec condition key: it keeps your approved parameter sets (ML-DSA-65 and ML-DSA-87) fully usable while preventing the creation and use of a parameter set you’ve excluded (ML-DSA-44) on the CreateKey, in addition to the Sign, Verify, and GetPublicKey operations, where kms:SigningAlgorithm can’t tell the variants apart. Applied as defense in depth across SCPs, IAM policies, permission boundaries, and KMS key policies, and extended to the surfaces that have no algorithm condition key (AWS Private CA, certificate import, and Elastic Load Balancing TLS) through provisioning controls plus AWS CloudTrail and AWS Config drift detection, these controls give you a consistent way to keep an unapproved variant out of your accounts.

The pattern isn’t specific to ML-DSA-44. Because your algorithm policy will change as standards and your own requirements evolve, treat these controls as a reusable template and re-point the same condition keys and guardrails at whatever your approved set becomes. This adaptability is the practical meaning of cryptographic agility: changing what you allow without re-engineering how you enforce it.

To get started, review ML-DSA keys in AWS KMS and Choosing a KMS key spec, and test the example policies in a non-production environment before you deploy them.

To see the workloads these controls govern, read Part 1 of this series, which builds a complete ML-DSA signing pipeline, from key creation and PKI through artifact signing and verification, using the approved set enforced here.

• Quantum-resistant signing on AWS, Part 1: Build a software supply chain with ML-DSA
• AWS KMS adds support for post-quantum ML-DSA digital signatures
• ML-DSA keys in AWS KMS
• AWS KMS condition keys (kms:KeySpec evaluated on CreateKey and key resource operations)
• Choosing a KMS key spec (kms:KeySpec)
• Use condition keys with ACM (acm:KeyAlgorithm)
• Actions, resources, and condition keys for AWS Private Certificate Authority
• Private CA CertificateAuthorityConfiguration API
• Actions, resources, and condition keys for Elastic Load Balancing v2 (elasticloadbalancing:SecurityPolicy)
• Enhanced access denied error messages with policy ARNs

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

Software supply chain attacks have grown in both frequency and sophistication. Recent high-profile compromises of build systems and open source dependencies demonstrate that attackers increasingly target the trust mechanisms that verify software integrity. Those trust mechanisms rely on digital signature algorithms, and today many use traditional algorithms such as Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) and the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). If a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could forge these signatures, an attacker could potentially inject unauthorized code into signed artifacts, fabricate build attestations, or impersonate legitimate publishers. Using quantum-resistant signatures today defends against threats that might emerge in the future.

Since 2025, the Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite 2.0 (CNSA 2.0), published by the US National Security Agency (NSA), has required US National Security Systems (NSS) to “support and prefer” quantum-resistant signatures for software and firmware, with exclusive use mandated by 2030. The EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) takes full effect in December 2027. It requires manufacturers to maintain verifiable software integrity throughout a product’s lifecycle. Organizations that ship software to US federal agencies or sell products in the European market face converging deadlines that demand action now.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) provides the building blocks to construct a quantum-resistant software supply chain today using production-ready, generally available services. In this post, I show you how to combine Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (ML-DSA) keys in AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS), ML-DSA certificate hierarchies in AWS Private Certificate Authority, and ML-DSA trust anchors in AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) Roles Anywhere into an end-to-end signing architecture for binaries, container images, and software bills of materials (SBOMs).

This post is Part 1 of a two-part series on adopting ML-DSA signatures, standardized in NIST FIPS 204 (ML-DSA) signatures, on AWS. As of Oct 2026, this series is the first end-to-end guide from any cloud provider for post-quantum signing across the software supply chain, from establishing an ML-DSA root of trust to enforcing algorithm policy across an organization. This part is for builders and walks through constructing and operating the signing pipeline. Part 2, Enforce your ML-DSA algorithm policy with SCPs and IAM, is for security and governance teams and shows how to turn the algorithm choices made here into preventive and detective controls across an organization.

After a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC) exists, the mathematical problems protecting today’s public-key cryptography can be solved efficiently. Attacks that are impractical today because of the computational complexity suddenly become practical using a CRQC. Most discussions of post-quantum cryptography (PQC) focus on the harvest now, decrypt later threat to data confidentiality. The asymmetric keys protecting data in transit can be efficiently derived using a CRQC, exposing the data that was meant to be protected. Digital signatures rely on the same asymmetric mathematical problems that a CRQC would break. This means that software supply chains face a parallel threat that targets integrity rather than confidentiality. An attacker who records signed artifacts today can forge those signatures in the future on a totally different artifact, using a CRQC.

Consider firmware signed with ECDSA P-256 and deployed to a fleet of embedded devices in 2026. These devices verify the firmware signature on every boot for their 15-year operational lifetime and can’t be recalled to re-sign after deployment. If a CRQC becomes operational in 2035, an attacker could produce a valid-looking signature over tampered firmware, and every device in the fleet would accept it as authentic on next restart. For organizations that rely on classical digital signatures as the primary mechanism for verifying software integrity, this weakens a critical link in the verification chain. This is why CNSA 2.0 specifies aggressive timelines for digital signatures: the artifacts you sign today must remain trustworthy for their full operational lifetime.

ML-DSA is designed to resist attacks from both classical and quantum computers. AWS KMS, AWS Private CA, and AWS IAM Roles Anywhere all support ML-DSA, making it possible to address the forge-later threat across your supply chain today without additional tooling.

The architecture comprises five trust pillars that together protect your software delivery pipeline:

1. ML-DSA key management in AWS KMS – All signing keys are generated and protected in FIPS 140-3 Security Level 3 hardware security modules (HSMs). Private keys never leave the HSM boundary.
2. ML-DSA public key infrastructure (PKI) through AWS Private CA – A certificate hierarchy (root CA, subordinate CA, end-entity certificates) binds ML-DSA public keys to identities, establishing who signed what. CA private keys are generated and stored in hardware-protected HSMs managed by the service and never leave the HSM boundary.
3. Quantum-resistant workload identity (for external build agents) – For continuous integration and delivery (CI/CD) agents running outside AWS that authenticate through X.509 certificates, IAM Roles Anywhere with ML-DSA certificates ties the signer’s identity back to the same quantum-resistant root of trust.
4. ML-DSA artifact signing – Build outputs (binaries, container image manifests, packages) are signed using AWS KMS ML-DSA keys. Signatures are stored alongside artifacts in Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) or Amazon Elastic Container Registry (Amazon ECR).
5. ML-DSA SBOM integrity attestation – The SBOM for each release is wrapped in an in-toto Statement that names the artifact it describes by digest, and the Statement is signed with the same ML-DSA code-signing key. This provides quantum-resistant proof that the dependency manifest hasn’t been tampered with and that it belongs to the artifact it accompanies.

These pillars create a chain of trust: AWS Private CA protects the root CA key in its own HSMs, issues certificates that bind identities to AWS KMS code-signing keys, IAM Roles Anywhere uses those certificates to authenticate build agents, and authenticated agents sign every artifact and SBOM they produce.

Figure 1: End-to-end quantum-resistant software supply chain on AWS

Figure 1 illustrates this architecture in four layers, numbered in the order you build them:

1. Root of trust (Pillars 1 and 2) – Establish your AWS Private CA hierarchy and create your code-signing key in AWS KMS.
2. Workload identity (Pillar 3) – Register the CA as an IAM Roles Anywhere trust anchor and issue ML-DSA certificates to build agents, ensuring the signer’s identity chains back to the same quantum-resistant root of trust.
3. Artifact signing (Pillars 4 and 5) – Sign binaries, container images, and SBOMs using the authenticated build agent.
4. Verification and enforcement – Validate signatures at deployment and enforce ML-DSA-only policies.

To follow along, you need:

• An AWS account with permissions to create resources in AWS KMS, AWS Private CA, IAM Roles Anywhere, and Amazon ECR.
• AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) v2 configured with appropriate credentials.
• IAM Roles Anywhere credential helper (aws_signing_helper) v1.8.0 or later, the first release that supports ML-DSA keys and certificates, for workload authentication. Download from the IAM Roles Anywhere documentation.
• OpenSSL 3.5 or later (required for ML-DSA signature verification and mu computation).
• ORAS CLI v1.2 or later (for attaching Open Container Initiative (OCI) referrer artifacts to container images). Alternatively, you can use the Notation CLI with a custom plugin or any OCI-compliant client that supports the OCI Referrers API.
• jq, for constructing and parsing the in-toto Statements used for SBOM attestation and for parsing ORAS output.
• Amazon Inspector SBOM Generator (Sbomgen), or another tool that produces a CycloneDX JSON SBOM, for the SBOM example. Sbomgen runs only on Linux (x86-64 and ARM64), so run that step on a Linux build agent or container. It uses the registry credentials that oras login stores in the Docker config file, and it also accepts them through --username or the INSPECTOR_SBOMGEN_USERNAME and INSPECTOR_SBOMGEN_PASSWORD environment variables.
• Java 11 or later and Apache Maven, to run the diy-code-signing-kms-private-ca sample that produces the code-signing CSR in Step 4 of Building the ML-DSA PKI foundation.
• A container image pushed to Amazon ECR (for the container signing example).

Start by creating the certificate hierarchy that will anchor your supply chain trust. AWS Private CA generates and stores its own CA signing keys internally in hardware-protected HSMs when you create a certificate authority. Use ML-DSA-87 (NIST security category 5, defined as at least as hard to break as exhaustive key search on AES-256) for the root CA because it protects the longest-lived trust anchor. Use ML-DSA-65 (NIST security category 3) for the subordinate CA to balance security with smaller signature sizes for frequently issued certificates.

The parameter sets used here, ML-DSA-87 and ML-DSA-65, are also the approved set in the example algorithm policy that Part 2 of this series turns into enforceable controls. If your organization has standardized on a different set, substitute it in the commands that follow; the build steps don’t change.

Step 1: Create the root CA in AWS Private CA

When you specify KeyAlgorithm: ML_DSA_87, Private CA generates an ML-DSA-87 key pair internally. You don’t need to create a separate AWS KMS key for the CA.

aws acm-pca create-certificate-authority \
  --certificate-authority-configuration '{
    "KeyAlgorithm": "ML_DSA_87",
    "SigningAlgorithm": "ML_DSA_87",
    "Subject": {
      "CommonName": "PQC Supply Chain Root CA",
      "Organization": "Example Corp",
      "Country": "US"
    }
  }' \
  --certificate-authority-type ROOT

After creation, the root CA is in PENDING_CERTIFICATE state. Activate it by self-signing its certificate. This is where you set the root CA’s validity period (10 years is typical for a root):

# Retrieve the root CA's CSR
aws acm-pca get-certificate-authority-csr \
  --certificate-authority-arn <root-ca-arn> \
  --output text > root-ca.csr

# Self-sign the root CA certificate (valid for 10 years)
ROOT_CERT_ARN=$(aws acm-pca issue-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <root-ca-arn> \
  --csr fileb://root-ca.csr \
  --signing-algorithm ML_DSA_87 \
  --validity Value=3650,Type=DAYS \
  --template-arn arn:aws:acm-pca:::template/RootCACertificate/V1 \
  --query CertificateArn --output text)

# Retrieve and install the self-signed root certificate
aws acm-pca get-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <root-ca-arn> \
  --certificate-arn $ROOT_CERT_ARN \
  --query Certificate --output text > root-ca-cert.pem

aws acm-pca import-certificate-authority-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <root-ca-arn> \
  --certificate fileb://root-ca-cert.pem

Step 2: Create a subordinate CA for code signing

aws acm-pca create-certificate-authority \
  --certificate-authority-configuration '{
    "KeyAlgorithm": "ML_DSA_65",
    "SigningAlgorithm": "ML_DSA_65",
    "Subject": {
      "CommonName": "PQC Code Signing CA",
      "Organization": "Example Corp",
      "Country": "US"
    }
  }' \
  --certificate-authority-type SUBORDINATE

After creation, the subordinate CA enters PENDING_CERTIFICATE state with no link to the root. Activate it by signing its certificate signing request (CSR) with the root CA:

# Retrieve the subordinate CA's certificate signing request
aws acm-pca get-certificate-authority-csr \
  --certificate-authority-arn <sub-ca-arn> \
  --output text > sub-ca.csr

# Sign the CSR using the root CA (this establishes the trust hierarchy)
SUB_CERT_ARN=$(aws acm-pca issue-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <root-ca-arn> \
  --csr fileb://sub-ca.csr \
  --signing-algorithm ML_DSA_87 \
  --validity Value=1825,Type=DAYS \
  --template-arn arn:aws:acm-pca:::template/SubordinateCACertificate_PathLen0/V1 \
  --query CertificateArn --output text)

# Retrieve the signed certificate and import it to activate the subordinate CA
aws acm-pca get-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <root-ca-arn> \
  --certificate-arn $SUB_CERT_ARN \
  --query Certificate --output text > sub-ca-cert.pem

aws acm-pca import-certificate-authority-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <sub-ca-arn> \
  --certificate fileb://sub-ca-cert.pem \
  --certificate-chain fileb://root-ca-cert.pem

Step 3: Create the code-signing key in AWS KMS

Your build agents use this key to sign artifacts, so their IAM roles need the kms:Sign permission on it. The end-entity certificate issued by your subordinate CA binds an identity to this key’s public key.

aws kms create-key \
  --key-spec ML_DSA_65 \
  --key-usage SIGN_VERIFY \
  --description "PQC code-signing key for supply chain" \
  --tags TagKey=Purpose,TagValue=CodeSigning

Create an alias for convenient reference in your CI/CD scripts:

aws kms create-alias \
  --alias-name alias/pqc-code-signing \
  --target-key-id <key-id-from-above>

Step 4: Issue the end-entity code signing certificate

To issue a certificate, you need a CSR. Because the ML-DSA private key never leaves the AWS KMS HSM, you can’t generate the CSR locally with OpenSSL. Instead, you construct the CSR’s TBS (to-be-signed) structure containing your subject name and public key, sign it remotely by calling aws kms sign, and assemble the final CSR from those components.

For a working implementation that assembles an ML-DSA CSR around a KMS-managed private key and signs it with AWS KMS, see Post-quantum (ML-DSA) code signing with AWS Private CA and AWS KMS and its diy-code-signing-kms-private-ca sample on GitHub (Java, built with Maven). There is no AWS CLI-only path for this step: the CSR must be constructed and signed in code, and the sample is the reference implementation.

After you have the code-signing.csr file, issue the certificate from your subordinate CA:

# Issue a code-signing certificate valid for one year, signed by the subordinate CA using ML-DSA-65.
# Replace <sub-ca-arn> with the ARN that create-certificate-authority returned for the subordinate CA in Step 2.
CODE_SIGNING_CERT_ARN=$(aws acm-pca issue-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <sub-ca-arn> \
  --csr fileb://code-signing.csr \
  --signing-algorithm ML_DSA_65 \
  --validity Value=365,Type=DAYS \
  --template-arn arn:aws:acm-pca:::template/CodeSigningCertificate/V1 \
  --query CertificateArn --output text)

# Retrieve the issued certificate
aws acm-pca get-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <sub-ca-arn> \
  --certificate-arn $CODE_SIGNING_CERT_ARN \
  --query Certificate --output text > code-signing-cert.pem

This certificate binds the signer identity to the AWS KMS code-signing key material. Note that the certificate validity period (365 days in this example) determines how long verifiers can validate signatures by checking the certificate alone. AWS Private CA lets you choose the validity period of an issued certificate, as long as it ends no later than the issuing CA’s own certificate; in this example the subordinate CA certificate from Step 2 is valid for 1,825 days, so the three-year option below fits inside it. For artifacts that must remain verifiable beyond the certificate’s expiry, consider these approaches:

• Longer certificate validity – For private PKI, code-signing certificates are commonly issued with multi-year validity (for example, Value=1095,Type=DAYS for 3 years) because you control the issuance policy.
• Trusted timestamping (RFC 3161) – Countersign each signature with an RFC 3161 timestamp from a Time Stamping Authority (TSA) at signing time. The timestamp proves the signature was created while the certificate was valid, allowing verification indefinitely. AWS doesn’t provide a managed TSA; use a third-party TSA or operate your own.
• Re-signing – Before a certificate expires, re-sign active artifacts with a newly issued certificate.

Distribute the certificate chain (root CA certificate, subordinate CA certificate, and end-entity certificate) to systems that need to verify your signatures.

With the PKI hierarchy in place, integrate ML-DSA signing into your build process. The approach depends on artifact type. ML-DSA-65 signatures are 3,309 bytes (compared to 64 bytes for ECDSA P-256), and the latency of the AWS KMS Sign operation for ML-DSA is comparable to existing asymmetric operations. The larger signature size has negligible impact when stored alongside multi-megabyte container images or packages, but is worth accounting for in size-constrained environments like embedded device images transmitted over low-bandwidth links.

Most build outputs, including compiled binaries and packages, are far larger than the 4,096-byte limit that AWS KMS places on the message passed to aws kms sign. Make the EXTERNAL_MU method your pipeline’s default: compute the 64-byte message representative (mu) externally with OpenSSL 3.5, then pass only mu to AWS KMS. This handles an artifact of any size and never needs to change as your artifacts grow. AWS KMS also accepts content directly with --message-type RAW, up to 4,096 bytes. Use RAW only for inputs whose size is fixed by construction, such as the 71-character manifest digest in the container image example that follows. An artifact that fits today is likely to outgrow the limit later, and a pipeline that depends on RAW fails when it does. Both methods produce cryptographically identical signatures. The verifier doesn’t need to know which method was used; standard ML-DSA verification applies in either case.

# Retrieve the public key
aws kms get-public-key --key-id alias/pqc-code-signing \
  --query PublicKey --output text | base64 --decode > pk.der

# Extract raw public key bytes from the DER-encoded SubjectPublicKeyInfo.
# The BIT STRING starts at offset 17 for all ML-DSA key sizes. 
# Expected output: 1,312 bytes (ML-DSA-44), 1,952 bytes (ML-DSA-65), or 2,592 bytes (ML-DSA-87).

openssl asn1parse -inform DER -in pk.der -strparse 17 -noout -out pk_raw.bin

# Compute mu per FIPS 204 Section 6.2
printf '\x00\x00' | cat - artifact.bin > m_prime.bin
openssl dgst -shake256 -xoflen 64 -binary pk_raw.bin > pk_hash.bin
cat pk_hash.bin m_prime.bin | openssl dgst -shake256 -xoflen 64 -binary > mu.bin

# Sign the mu value
aws kms sign \
  --key-id alias/pqc-code-signing \
  --message fileb://mu.bin \
  --message-type EXTERNAL_MU \
  --signing-algorithm ML_DSA_SHAKE_256 \
  --query Signature --output text | base64 --decode > artifact.bin.sig

Store the .sig file alongside the artifact in Amazon S3 or your package repository. Protect the integrity of both the artifact and its signature by enabling S3 Object Lock (WORM protection) or at minimum S3 Versioning with restricted write access. If an attacker can modify or delete either file, verification can’t be trusted. For comprehensive guidance, see Security best practices for Amazon S3.

For container image signing, use the OCI referrer pattern, defined in the OCI Image and Distribution Specifications v1.1. A referrer is an artifact, such as a signature or an SBOM, whose manifest names another image in its subject field. Registries that support the pattern, including Amazon ECR, return these artifacts when a client asks for an image’s referrers. This approach uses AWS KMS ML-DSA keys to generate the signature and stores it as a referrer of the image:

# Repository URI used by ORAS here and in the SBOM steps; replace the account ID and Region
ECR_URI=111122223333.dkr.ecr.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/myapp

# Authenticate ORAS to Amazon ECR
aws ecr get-login-password --region us-east-1 | \
  oras login --username AWS --password-stdin 111122223333.dkr.ecr.us-east-1.amazonaws.com

# Get the image manifest digest
IMAGE_DIGEST=$(aws ecr batch-get-image \
  --repository-name myapp \
  --image-ids imageTag=v1.2.0 \
  --query 'images[0].imageId.imageDigest' --output text)

# Sign the digest. It is a fixed 71 characters, so RAW is safe here (see Binary and package signing).
# AWS CLI v2 expects blob parameters to be base64, so write the digest to a file and pass it with fileb://
echo -n "$IMAGE_DIGEST" > digest.txt
aws kms sign \
  --key-id alias/pqc-code-signing \
  --message fileb://digest.txt \
  --message-type RAW \
  --signing-algorithm ML_DSA_SHAKE_256 \
  --query Signature --output text | base64 --decode > image.mldsa.sig

# Attach signature as OCI referrer using ORAS
oras attach $ECR_URI@$IMAGE_DIGEST \
  --artifact-type "application/vnd.example.mldsa-signature.v1" \
  image.mldsa.sig:application/octet-stream

At deployment time, your admission controller retrieves the referrer artifact and verifies the ML-DSA signature before allowing the image to run. See Verifying a container image signature before deployment later in this post for the full verification workflow and admission control implementation.

A software bill of materials (SBOM) is a structured inventory of every component, library, and dependency included in a software release. It lists package names, versions, suppliers, and dependency relationships. Organizations use SBOMs to track vulnerabilities, verify license compliance, and respond quickly when a compromised component is disclosed.

Signing the SBOM file on its own proves that the inventory hasn’t been tampered with since it was signed, but not which artifact it describes. If the image signature and the SBOM signature are independent of each other, an attacker who holds a legitimately signed SBOM for a clean image can present it alongside a different signed image and claim that the two correspond. Attaching the SBOM to the image as an OCI referrer doesn’t close this gap by itself, because the subject field of a referrer manifest is set by whoever pushes the referrer; it’s a discovery mechanism, not a cryptographic binding. The binding must be inside the bytes that the signature covers.

To create that binding, wrap the SBOM in an in-toto Statement before signing it. A Statement names the artifacts it describes in its subject field, by digest, and carries the SBOM as its predicate. Because the image manifest digest is part of the signed content, a verifier can confirm that the SBOM in hand was issued for exactly the image it is about to deploy, and a swapped SBOM or a swapped digest fails verification. Embedding the SBOM in the image filesystem is another way to bind the two, because the image digest then covers the SBOM bytes. This post uses the Statement approach because it also works for SBOMs generated by scanning a finished image, for artifacts that have no filesystem such as binaries and firmware, and for images that are already in your registry, and because the SBOM stays readable from the registry without pulling the image.

Generate the SBOM with your preferred tool (such as Amazon Inspector SBOM Generator (Sbomgen) for container images), wrap it in a Statement, and sign the Statement with the same EXTERNAL_MU step you use for binaries:

# Scan the pushed image by digest so the inventory describes exactly the manifest you signed.
# Sbomgen reuses the registry login from the oras login step in the previous section.
inspector-sbomgen container --image $ECR_URI@$IMAGE_DIGEST -o sbom.json

# Wrap the SBOM in an in-toto Statement whose subject is the image manifest digest.
# This puts the digest inside the signed bytes, which binds this SBOM to this image.
jq -n \
  --arg name "$ECR_URI" \
  --arg digest "${IMAGE_DIGEST#sha256:}" \
  --slurpfile sbom sbom.json \
  '{
    "_type": "https://in-toto.io/Statement/v1",
    "subject": [{"name": $name, "digest": {"sha256": $digest}}],
    "predicateType": "https://cyclonedx.org/bom",
    "predicate": $sbom[0]
  }' > sbom.statement.json

# Sign using EXTERNAL_MU (same mu computation as binary signing above,
# with sbom.statement.json as the input)
# ... compute mu from sbom.statement.json ...
aws kms sign \
  --key-id alias/pqc-code-signing \
  --message fileb://mu.bin \
  --message-type EXTERNAL_MU \
  --signing-algorithm ML_DSA_SHAKE_256 \
  --query Signature --output text | base64 --decode > sbom.statement.json.sig

# Attach the Statement and its signature to the image as an OCI referrer so
# verifiers discover them alongside the image signature
oras attach $ECR_URI@$IMAGE_DIGEST \
  --artifact-type "application/vnd.example.mldsa-sbom-attestation.v1" \
  sbom.statement.json:application/vnd.in-toto+json \
  sbom.statement.json.sig:application/octet-stream

Ship the Statement and its .sig file together; the SBOM itself is the Statement’s predicate field, and verifiers extract it after verification. The same pattern binds an SBOM to a binary or package: set the subject digest to the SHA-256 of the file instead of an image manifest digest. The Verifying a binary or SBOM signature section later in this post walks through the full verification workflow, including the subject check that completes the binding.

Signing artifacts with ML-DSA keys addresses the integrity of the artifacts themselves. Separately, build agents running outside AWS (on-premises Jenkins, self-hosted GitHub Actions runners, or third-party CI/CD systems) authenticate using X.509 certificates or OIDC tokens typically signed with RSA or ECDSA. These authentication credentials represent a classical cryptographic dependency in the pipeline. IAM Roles Anywhere with ML-DSA certificates replaces that dependency: the credential that the external build agent presents, and the CA that vouches for it, no longer rely on algorithms that are vulnerable to quantum attack. (The TLS connection that carries the request still authenticates the AWS endpoint with a traditional certificate, as public TLS does today; that is a transport concern separate from the signing identity this post is about.) Build agents running on AWS with an attached IAM role don’t have this dependency: their API requests are authenticated with AWS Signature Version 4 (SigV4), which uses a symmetric hash-based message authentication code (HMAC-SHA256). Symmetric schemes like this are already considered quantum-resistant, so no additional action is needed.

Step 1: Register a workload identity CA as a trust anchor

For this walkthrough, reuse the subordinate CA that you created earlier; that avoids the monthly charge for a second CA, and the commands that follow assume it. In production, use a dedicated subordinate CA for workload identity certificates, separate from your code-signing CA. This limits the blast radius if either CA is compromised and has to be revoked, and it lets you apply different issuance policies to the two certificate types.

# Use the ARN that create-certificate-authority returned when you created the
# subordinate CA earlier. If you no longer have it, list your CAs and copy the
# ARN of the SUBORDINATE one.
aws acm-pca list-certificate-authorities \
  --query "CertificateAuthorities[?Type=='SUBORDINATE'].[Arn,Status,CertificateAuthorityConfiguration.Subject.CommonName]" \
  --output table
SUB_CA_ARN=arn:aws:acm-pca:us-east-1:111122223333:certificate-authority/abc-123   # replace with yours

# Register the subordinate CA as an IAM Roles Anywhere trust anchor
aws rolesanywhere create-trust-anchor \
  --name "PQC-CI-CD-Trust-Anchor" \
  --source "sourceType=AWS_ACM_PCA,sourceData={acmPcaArn=$SUB_CA_ARN}" \
  --enabled

Step 2: Create the build agent role and a profile that references it

An IAM Roles Anywhere profile specifies which IAM roles a workload can assume after it authenticates with a certificate from your trust anchor. Create the role first. Its trust policy lets IAM Roles Anywhere assume it only through your trust anchor and only for a certificate whose subject common name identifies the build agent; without those conditions, any certificate that the trust anchor CA issues could assume the role. Its permissions policy grants only what signing requires, on only the code-signing key. Save the trust policy as build-agent-trust.json, replacing the trust anchor ARN with the one that create-trust-anchor returned in Step 1:

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Principal": {"Service": "rolesanywhere.amazonaws.com"},
      "Action": ["sts:AssumeRole", "sts:TagSession", "sts:SetSourceIdentity"],
      "Condition": {
        "ArnEquals": {
          "aws:SourceArn": "arn:aws:rolesanywhere:us-east-1:111122223333:trust-anchor/ta-id"
        },
        "StringEquals": {
          "aws:PrincipalTag/x509Subject/CN": "pqc-build-agent-01"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

Save the permissions policy as build-agent-permissions.json, replacing the resource with your key’s ARN (aws kms describe-key --key-id alias/pqc-code-signing --query KeyMetadata.Arn --output text):

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": ["kms:Sign", "kms:GetPublicKey", "kms:DescribeKey"],
      "Resource": "<code-signing-key-arn>"
    }
  ]
}

Create the role, attach the policy, and then create a profile that references the role:

aws iam create-role \
  --role-name PQCBuildAgentRole \
  --assume-role-policy-document file://build-agent-trust.json

aws iam put-role-policy \
  --role-name PQCBuildAgentRole \
  --policy-name pqc-code-signing \
  --policy-document file://build-agent-permissions.json

aws rolesanywhere create-profile \
  --name "PQC-Build-Agent-Profile" \
  --role-arns "arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/PQCBuildAgentRole" \
  --enabled

Step 3: Issue the build agent certificate and configure the credential helper

Generate the build agent’s ML-DSA-65 key pair and CSR locally with OpenSSL, have the subordinate CA issue a client authentication certificate for it, and then configure the IAM Roles Anywhere credential helper to present that certificate:

# Generate the build agent's key pair and CSR. The CN must match the
# aws:PrincipalTag/x509Subject/CN condition in the role's trust policy.
openssl genpkey -algorithm ML-DSA-65 -out build-agent-mldsa-key.pem
chmod 400 build-agent-mldsa-key.pem
openssl req -new -key build-agent-mldsa-key.pem \
  -subj "/C=US/O=Example Corp/CN=pqc-build-agent-01" \
  -out build-agent.csr

# Issue a 30-day client authentication certificate from the subordinate CA
# registered as the trust anchor in Step 1.
BUILD_AGENT_CERT_ARN=$(aws acm-pca issue-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn $SUB_CA_ARN \
  --csr fileb://build-agent.csr \
  --signing-algorithm ML_DSA_65 \
  --validity Value=30,Type=DAYS \
  --template-arn arn:aws:acm-pca:::template/EndEntityClientAuthCertificate/V1 \
  --query CertificateArn --output text)

aws acm-pca get-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn $SUB_CA_ARN \
  --certificate-arn $BUILD_AGENT_CERT_ARN \
  --query Certificate --output text > build-agent-mldsa.pem

# In production, store the private key in a TPM or HSM rather than as a plaintext file.
aws_signing_helper credential-process \
  --certificate build-agent-mldsa.pem \
  --private-key build-agent-mldsa-key.pem \
  --trust-anchor-arn arn:aws:rolesanywhere:us-east-1:111122223333:trust-anchor/ta-id \
  --profile-arn arn:aws:rolesanywhere:us-east-1:111122223333:profile/profile-id \
  --role-arn arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/PQCBuildAgentRole

The helper produces short-lived AWS Security Token Service (AWS STS) credentials scoped to the build role, replacing long-lived AWS access keys. In production, protect the ML-DSA private key with hardware-backed storage such as a Trusted Platform Module (TPM), an HSM, or an encrypted credential store with restricted file permissions. The plaintext file path shown here is for demonstration purposes. The private key authorizes access to your code-signing infrastructure and should be treated with the same protection level as any signing key. On Linux build agents, at minimum restrict the file to chmod 400 owned by the service account and consider using a PKCS#11 provider to avoid storing the raw key on disk entirely.

A signing architecture is only as strong as its verification. Producing signatures is half the story. The other half is giving the systems and people that deploy your artifacts, such as deployment pipelines, Kubernetes admission controllers, and engineers installing a package, a concrete way to verify those signatures and make trust decisions before an artifact is deployed or run.

Before any verifier can check a signature, it needs to trust the CA that issued the code-signing certificate. This trust is established through a trust store: a local collection of root CA certificates that a system treats as authoritative. Trust stores exist in operating systems (such as /etc/pki/ca-trust/ on Linux, Keychain on macOS), language run-times (Java cacerts), container base images, and custom application configurations.

For private PKI hierarchies like the one in this post, your root CA certificate isn’t in any default public trust store. You must explicitly add it to the trust stores of every system that will verify your signatures. Common approaches include:

• Baking the root CA certificate into your container base images during the build process
• Distributing it through configuration management (AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, AWS Secrets Manager, or your existing configuration tooling)
• Publishing it to an internal S3 bucket with versioning and access logging
• Storing it as an OCI artifact in Amazon ECR alongside the images it protects

Treat trust store management with the same rigor as credential management. If an attacker can inject a rogue root certificate into your trust stores, they can make forged signatures appear valid. Restrict write access to trust stores and audit changes through AWS CloudTrail or your system-level audit logs.

Exporting your certificate chain requires exporting the root CA, and then any subordinate CAs that issue certificates that will be involved in verifying signatures:

# Export the root CA certificate
aws acm-pca get-certificate-authority-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <root-ca-arn> \
  --query Certificate --output text > root-ca.pem

# Export the subordinate CA certificate. Select only the Certificate field: for a
# subordinate CA this call also returns CertificateChain, and --output text would
# print both on one tab-separated line, producing a file that OpenSSL can't parse.
aws acm-pca get-certificate-authority-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <sub-ca-arn> \
  --query Certificate --output text > sub-ca.pem
  
# Bundle the full chain for verifiers
cat root-ca.pem sub-ca.pem > trust-chain.pem

Verifiers use this chain to confirm that the code-signing public key was issued by a CA they trust.

The CAs in this post are created without a revocation configuration, and the verification commands that follow don’t check revocation status, which keeps the walkthrough short. In production, configure a certificate revocation list (CRL) or an Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) responder on the subordinate CA (see Plan your AWS Private CA certificate revocation method in the AWS Private CA User Guide; both work with ML-DSA CAs). If you use a CRL, distribute it alongside the trust chain and add -crl_check -CRLfile <crl-file> to the openssl verify command below, where <crl-file> is the CRL that AWS Private CA publishes to your S3 bucket, so that a revoked code-signing certificate fails verification.

Verify the code-signing certificate against the trust chain, confirm that it is a code-signing certificate issued to the signer you expect, extract its public key, and then verify the signature with OpenSSL 3.5. The second check matters: a chain check alone accepts every certificate that the CA hierarchy has issued, including the build agent client certificates from the previous section, so pin the expected subject in your verifier configuration:

# Step 1: Verify that the code-signing certificate chains to the trusted root CA and carries the
# Code Signing extended key usage. -purpose codesign (OpenSSL 3.2 and later) rejects a certificate
# that chains correctly but was issued for another purpose, such as a build agent's client
# authentication certificate from the same subordinate CA.
# trust-chain.pem contains the root CA and subordinate CA certificates distributed in the previous section.
openssl verify -CAfile trust-chain.pem -purpose codesign code-signing-cert.pem
# Confirm that the certificate was issued to the signer you expect. Replace <signer-cn> with the
# common name in your code-signing certificate's subject.
openssl x509 -in code-signing-cert.pem -noout -subject -nameopt RFC2253 | grep -q "CN=<signer-cn>" || { echo "Unexpected signer"; exit 1; }

# Step 2: Extract the public key from the verified certificate.
openssl x509 -in code-signing-cert.pem -pubkey -noout > signing-key.pem

# Step 3: Verify the artifact signature using the trusted public key.
openssl pkeyutl -verify \
  -pubin -inkey signing-key.pem \
  -in artifact.bin \
  -sigfile artifact.bin.sig \
  -rawin

A successful verification prints Signature Verified Successfully and returns an exit status of 0. A failed verification prints Signature Verification Failure and returns a nonzero exit status. In shell scripts, check the exit status of each command, or run the block with set -e, so that a failed certificate chain check stops the script before signature verification and a failed signature check blocks downstream actions.

For an SBOM, run the same three steps with sbom.statement.json as the -in file and sbom.statement.json.sig as the -sigfile, then add a fourth: confirm that the subject digest inside the verified Statement is the digest of the artifact you are about to deploy. Signature verification proves the Statement is authentic; the subject check proves it describes this artifact and not another one. The digest you compare against must come from the artifact itself, resolved from the registry for an image or computed from the file for a binary, never from the Statement. For an image, this is the same digest you verify the image signature against, so the two checks together establish that this SBOM describes this signed image.

# Step 4 (SBOM only): the signed Statement must name the image being deployed.
# Resolve the digest from Amazon ECR, not from the Statement.
IMAGE_DIGEST=$(aws ecr batch-get-image \
  --repository-name myapp \
  --image-ids imageTag=v1.2.0 \
  --query 'images[0].imageId.imageDigest' --output text)
SUBJECT_DIGEST=$(jq -r '.subject[0].digest.sha256' sbom.statement.json)
[ "sha256:$SUBJECT_DIGEST" = "$IMAGE_DIGEST" ] || { echo "SBOM does not describe this image"; exit 1; }

# Only now extract the SBOM for downstream tooling
jq '.predicate' sbom.statement.json > sbom.json

For a binary, compare the subject digest to the output of sha256sum artifact.bin instead. Reject the SBOM if either the signature or the subject check fails.

Pull the ML-DSA signature from the OCI referrer artifact in Amazon ECR, then verify it against the image manifest digest:

# Pull the signature referrer. ORAS 1.2 lists referrers under "manifests";
# ORAS 1.3 and later list them under "referrers". The jq filter accepts either.
oras discover $ECR_URI@$IMAGE_DIGEST \
  --artifact-type "application/vnd.example.mldsa-signature.v1" --format json | \
  jq -r '(.referrers // .manifests)[0].digest' | \
  xargs -I{} oras pull $ECR_URI@{} -o /tmp/sig/

# Re-derive the image digest and verify
echo -n "$IMAGE_DIGEST" > /tmp/digest.txt
openssl pkeyutl -verify \
  -pubin -inkey signing-key.pem \
  -in /tmp/digest.txt \
  -sigfile /tmp/sig/image.mldsa.sig \
  -rawin

# Exit code 0 = image is authentic; non-zero = reject deployment

The same oras discover command with --artifact-type "application/vnd.example.mldsa-sbom-attestation.v1" retrieves the SBOM attestation and its signature; verify them as described in the previous section, including the subject check. The jq filter shown takes the first referrer of the requested type. Don’t rely on the order in which a registry lists referrers, and expect more than one after an image has been re-signed: a production verifier should check every referrer of that type and accept the image if at least one signature verifies against a certificate that chains to your trust store. Taking only the first can reject a correctly signed image, but it can never accept an unsigned one.

To enforce these checks at deployment time, run them in a Kubernetes admission controller, a component that the API server calls before it accepts a pod and that can reject the request. You can write one as a validating admission webhook (see Dynamic Admission Control in the Kubernetes documentation), or use Open Policy Agent (OPA) Gatekeeper, an admission webhook that enforces policies evaluated by the OPA policy engine, and package the verification steps as a Gatekeeper external data provider that a constraint calls. For a worked example of gating Amazon EKS deployments on image signatures, see Announcing Container Image Signing with AWS Signer and Amazon EKS, which verifies AWS Signer signatures at admission with Kyverno and discusses the Gatekeeper and custom webhook alternatives. The ML-DSA signature referrer in this post is a custom artifact type that those tools don’t verify out of the box, so the verification steps in this section run in code you supply. In either design, the controller runs before any pod is scheduled, rejecting images that lack a valid ML-DSA signature referrer in Amazon ECR or whose SBOM attestation doesn’t name the image being deployed.

Signature verification stops the use of an untrusted artifact at deployment. Organization-level controls apply earlier and more broadly: preventive controls stop teams from creating new traditional signing keys, and detective controls record every signing operation so you can audit which principal signed each artifact and when.

Preventive guardrails. Use an AWS Organizations Service control policy (SCP) to block creation of traditional signing keys in security-critical accounts, forcing all new signing workloads to use ML-DSA:

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "RequirePQCSigningKeys",
      "Effect": "Deny",
      "Action": "kms:CreateKey",
      "Resource": "*",
      "Condition": {
        "StringNotLike": {
          "kms:KeySpec": "ML_DSA_*"
        },
        "StringEquals": {
          "kms:KeyUsage": "SIGN_VERIFY"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

This SCP prevents teams from creating new RSA or ECDSA signing keys, enforcing quantum-resistant signatures as the only option for new workloads. Note that this SCP constrains the algorithm family, not the parameter set: it would still permit an ML-DSA-44 key, which this architecture doesn’t use. Part 2 of this series picks up at exactly this point. It shows how to express a complete algorithm policy (in its example, approve ML-DSA-65 and ML-DSA-87 and exclude ML-DSA-44) as layered controls using the kms:KeySpec condition key in SCPs, IAM permission boundaries, and AWS KMS key policies; how to restrict the use of keys that already exist; and how to govern surfaces such as AWS Private CA that have no algorithm condition key. This SCP and the parameter-set SCP in Part 2 work together: attach both, and every new signing key must use an approved parameter set.

Audit trail. AWS CloudTrail logs every kms:Sign and kms:Verify API call, providing an immutable record of when each artifact was signed and by which principal. Use an organization trail and query its logs with Amazon Athena to analyze signing activity across accounts and correlate it with your deployment events.

The following table maps regulatory milestones to specific actions you can take today using the architecture described in this post. This information is provided for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or compliance advice. Consult your legal and compliance teams to determine your organization’s specific obligations. For a broader overview of global PQC regulatory timelines, see Migrating to Post-Quantum Cryptography.

Note for NSS customers and other CNSA 2.0 adopters: CNSA 2.0 is the quantum-resistant algorithm suite that the NSA requires for NSS, the federal systems that carry classified information or support intelligence, cryptologic, military command and control, and weapons functions. When ML-DSA is used for any signature purpose, including software and firmware signing, CNSA 2.0 permits only the ML-DSA-87 parameter set. (For software and firmware signing it also approves the stateful hash-based schemes LMS and XMSS, which this post doesn’t cover.) The ML-DSA-65 parameter set used in this post’s code-signing examples is appropriate for commercial workloads but isn’t permitted on NSS. CNSA 2.0 is binding only for NSS, but it’s followed voluntarily well beyond that boundary: by suppliers to the US defense and intelligence market, in the United States and allied countries, whose products must meet NSS requirements, and by commercial organizations in and outside the United States that adopt it as a conservative baseline because it specifies the highest NIST security category and removes the need to revisit parameter choices later. If your systems fall under CNSA 2.0 scope, or you’ve chosen to align with it, substitute ML-DSA-87 for all signing keys and certificates. Part 2 of this series shows how to make that substitution enforceable: the same kms:KeySpec controls that exclude ML-DSA-44 in its example can be pointed at ML_DSA_87 as the only approved key spec.

For organizations serving both US government and EU commercial markets, the January 2027 and December 2027 deadlines converge into a single migration window. Starting now provides margin for testing, key rotation planning, and certificate chain validation.

You created a number of cryptographic resources in the prior steps and examples. AWS Private CA charges a monthly fee per CA and AWS KMS charges per key per month. To avoid ongoing charges, delete them if you aren’t actively using them. Start by listing what exists, so that you catch every resource you created, including duplicates from repeated runs. These commands list one Region; if you worked in more than one, repeat them with --region for each.

# List every private CA with its type, status, key algorithm, and subject.
# A CA you already deleted shows DELETED until its restoration window ends.
aws acm-pca list-certificate-authorities \
  --query 'CertificateAuthorities[].[Arn,Type,Status,CertificateAuthorityConfiguration.KeyAlgorithm,CertificateAuthorityConfiguration.Subject.CommonName]' \
  --output table

# List every ML-DSA key in AWS KMS with its state and creation date.
# A key already scheduled for deletion shows PendingDeletion.
for KEY_ID in $(aws kms list-keys --query 'Keys[].KeyId' --output text); do
  aws kms describe-key --key-id "$KEY_ID" \
    --query 'KeyMetadata.[KeyId,KeySpec,KeyState,CreationDate]' --output text
done | grep ML_DSA

# Show which alias points at which key. A key that no alias points at
# is usually a leftover from an earlier run.
aws kms list-aliases --query 'Aliases[].[AliasName,TargetKeyId]' --output text | grep -v '^alias/aws/'

AWS Private CA has no command that lists the certificates a CA has issued. If you need serial numbers for the revocation step that follows, generate an audit report with aws acm-pca create-certificate-authority-audit-report, which writes a list of every certificate the CA has issued or revoked to an S3 bucket that grants the service write access.

Delete each resource that you don’t need, including any extra copies that the listing revealed, then run the listing again to confirm that nothing is left:

# Revoke any issued end-entity certificates while the subordinate CA is still active
aws acm-pca revoke-certificate \
  --certificate-authority-arn <sub-ca-arn> \
  --certificate-serial <serial-number> \
  --revocation-reason CESSATION_OF_OPERATION

# Delete the IAM Roles Anywhere resources that reference the CA
aws rolesanywhere delete-profile --profile-id <profile-id>
aws rolesanywhere delete-trust-anchor --trust-anchor-id <trust-anchor-id>

# Delete the build agent role that the profile referenced, and the local copy of its private key
aws iam delete-role-policy --role-name PQCBuildAgentRole --policy-name pqc-code-signing
aws iam delete-role --role-name PQCBuildAgentRole
rm -f build-agent-mldsa-key.pem

# Delete the AWS KMS code-signing key (schedule 7-day waiting period).
# ScheduleKeyDeletion doesn't accept an alias, so resolve the key ID first.
KEY_ID=$(aws kms describe-key --key-id alias/pqc-code-signing \
  --query KeyMetadata.KeyId --output text)
aws kms schedule-key-deletion --key-id $KEY_ID --pending-window-in-days 7

# Remove the alias. It survives key deletion and would otherwise show up in the
# listing above on your next run.
aws kms delete-alias --alias-name alias/pqc-code-signing

# Disable and delete the subordinate CA
aws acm-pca update-certificate-authority \
  --certificate-authority-arn <sub-ca-arn> --status DISABLED
aws acm-pca delete-certificate-authority \
  --certificate-authority-arn <sub-ca-arn> --permanent-deletion-time-in-days 7

# Disable and delete the root CA
aws acm-pca update-certificate-authority \
  --certificate-authority-arn <root-ca-arn> --status DISABLED
aws acm-pca delete-certificate-authority \
  --certificate-authority-arn <root-ca-arn> --permanent-deletion-time-in-days 7

If you are adapting this for long-term use, plan for log retention. CloudTrail Event History keeps only the last 90 days of management events and is not a substitute for a trail. For the audit trail described earlier, create a trail that delivers to an S3 bucket with the lifecycle policy and access controls your retention requirements call for.

In this post, I showed you how to build a quantum-resistant software supply chain on AWS by combining ML-DSA signing in AWS KMS, ML-DSA certificate hierarchies in AWS Private CA, and ML-DSA workload authentication through IAM Roles Anywhere. The architecture covers the full pipeline; from authenticated build agents through signed binaries, container images, and SBOMs, to verification and policy enforcement at deployment.

Every ML-DSA capability used in this post is generally available. AWS Private CA and IAM Roles Anywhere support ML-DSA in all commercial AWS Regions, the AWS GovCloud (US) Regions, and the China Regions, and AWS KMS supports ML-DSA in commercial AWS Regions. You don’t need to wait for a standards body or third-party tool to finalize PQC support. The primitives are ready.

To get started, create your first ML-DSA key in AWS KMS and sign a test artifact. From there, extend to your PKI hierarchy, integrate IAM Roles Anywhere for your build agents, and add ML-DSA signatures to your container and SBOM workflows.

Building the pipeline is half the work. The other half is making sure the algorithm choices you made stay in force as accounts, teams, and standards change. That’s the subject of Part 2 of this series, Enforce your ML-DSA algorithm policy with SCPs and IAM, written for the security and governance teams who own that problem.

For more information, see:

• Quantum-resistant signing on AWS, Part 2: Enforce your ML-DSA algorithm policy with SCPs and IAM
• Post-quantum cryptography on AWS
• ML-DSA keys in AWS KMS
• Post-quantum ML-DSA code signing with AWS Private CA and AWS KMS
• IAM Roles Anywhere post-quantum digital certificates
• AWS post-quantum cryptography migration plan

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

The principle of least privilege is straightforward to articulate but challenging to maintain at scale. When teams first deploy applications to AWS, they often grant broader permissions than strictly necessary; it’s faster to get things working, and the plan is always to tighten permissions later. But later rarely comes. Permissions accumulate, AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) principals that once needed broad access for initial deployment retain those permissions long after they’re necessary, and some principals stop being used entirely. Even small teams face this challenge—permission reviews aren’t a one-time task but an ongoing operational burden that demands automation.

AWS IAM Access Analyzer addresses detection and recommendation. It identifies unused permissions across IAM roles and users: actions that haven’t been exercised, services that haven’t been accessed, and principals that aren’t being assumed at all. For each finding, it generates a recommended policy with the excess permissions removed. Security teams can see exactly what to fix, but manual remediation doesn’t persist. A security engineer can right-size a role today, but if that role is defined in an AWS CloudFormation template or AWS Cloud Development Kit (AWS CDK) stack, the next deployment restores the original permissions. The fix must live where the role is defined, and not every role starts in the same place. Some are managed through infrastructure-as-code (IaC), where remediation means updating source code and deploying through a pipeline. Others were created manually through the AWS Management Console and have no code representation. And some principals aren’t being used at all and need a controlled decommission path. Each scenario requires a different remediation strategy.

This post walks through an automated remediation workflow that bridges the gap between detection and action. Instead of findings accumulating in a dashboard waiting for someone to investigate, the automation classifies each role by how it was created and produces a ready-to-review remediation artifact: a pull request with production-ready CDK code and a plain-English explanation for IaC-managed roles, an issue with the recommended policy and step-by-step IaC migration guidance for manually created roles, or a soft-disable issue with a monitored decommission plan for unused principals. Each output flows through your existing code review and issue tracking processes—the same workflows your teams already follow. By the end of this post, you’ll have a pattern that converts IAM Access Analyzer findings into tested, deployable code changes rather than a growing backlog of security tickets.

Unused IAM permissions increase the attack surface. Removing unused permissions limits the actions available to any compromised credentials, reducing potential impact. Roles that aren’t being assumed represent unused resources; removing them simplifies your IAM inventory and reduces potential access paths that aren’t actively monitored.

The challenge isn’t knowing what to fix. As we said earlier, Access Analyzer provides both the findings and the recommended policies. The challenge is acting on that knowledge consistently across your environment. Each finding requires context:

• What the role does
• Who created the role
• Determining if the permission is unused or used infrequently
• If the role is managed in a CloudFormation stack, or was created through the console

Multiply this by hundreds of roles and security teams face a backlog that grows faster than they can address it.

Manual remediation compounds the problem. A security engineer can right-size a role directly in the console, but that fix is fragile. If the role is defined in an IaC template, the next deployment restores the original permissions. If it was created manually, there’s no record of what changed or why, and no easy way to revert if the change causes issues.

This is where IaC changes the equation. When roles are defined in code, remediation means updating that code. Changes flow through pull requests, are reviewed by the team that owns the role, and deploy consistently across environments. The fix becomes permanent, not a point-in-time correction that drifts back on the next deployment. And because every change is tracked in version control, teams can confidently remove permissions knowing they can revert if something breaks. That safety net matters; it’s often the difference between a team acting on a finding and leaving it in the backlog.

The solution automates remediation by connecting four capabilities: IAM Access Analyzer for detection and policy recommendations, CloudTrail for role attribution, Amazon Bedrock for CDK code generation and plain-English explanations, and your existing continuous integration and delivery (CI/CD) pipeline for remediation execution. The workflow operates on a core principle: every IAM role has an origin, and that origin determines the remediation path.

Figure 1 shows the solution architecture: Amazon EventBridge triggers an AWS Lambda orchestrator on a daily schedule. The Lambda orchestrator integrates with IAM Access Analyzer, CloudTrail, Amazon Bedrock, and Amazon CloudWatch. Each finding is routed to one of three remediation paths: a pull request for IaC-managed roles, an issue for manually created roles, and a soft-disable issue for unused roles.

Figure 1: The daily remediation workflow; from scheduled trigger to the three role-based remediation paths

On each scheduled run, the automation retrieves active findings from IAM Access Analyzer and queries CloudTrail to determine how each role was created. Roles created through CloudFormation or AWS CDK have a traceable origin: the service principal, stack name, and originating repository. Roles created manually through the console have a different origin: the IAM user who created them and the timestamp. This distinction drives the remediation strategy.

For IaC-managed roles, the automation retrieves the IAM Access Analyzer-recommended policy and uses Amazon Bedrock to wrap it in production-ready CDK code that includes the role definition and policy statements and imports what your CI/CD pipeline needs to deploy the update. It then creates a pull request in the originating repository. The pull request (PR) includes the updated CDK code, a policy diff showing exactly which permissions are being removed, and a plain-English explanation of the changes, for example, “This change removes write access to S3, keeping only read and list permissions.” Your existing code review process evaluates the change, and after being merged, the fix deploys consistently across environments.

For manually created roles, the automation creates an issue that includes the IAM Access Analyzer-recommended policy with unused permissions removed, a diff highlighting the changes, and an Amazon Bedrock-generated explanation of what the permission changes accomplish. The issue also provides guidance on importing the role into your IaC codebase. This gives teams an immediate remediation path while encouraging long-term governance through IaC adoption.

For roles that aren’t being assumed at all, the automation takes a more cautious approach. Instead of taking direct action, it creates an issue recommending a soft-disable workflow: attach a deny-all policy to the role, monitor for 30 days to confirm no workload depends on it, then delete. The issue provides the steps and context, the team executes the decommission through their preferred process, whether that’s a console change, an AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) script, or a PR removing the role from the IaC. This controlled decommission path reduces the risk of removing a role that’s used infrequently or seasonally.

The solution supports both single-account and organization-wide deployment. In single-account mode, it uses an ACCOUNT_UNUSED_ACCESS analyzer to process findings for one account. In organization mode, it uses an ORGANIZATION_UNUSED_ACCESS analyzer deployed in a delegated administrator account, which generates findings across all member accounts from a single vantage point. The Lambda function automatically detects which analyzer type is available and extracts the account ID from each finding’s resource Amazon Resource Name (ARN), so role attribution and remediation routing work the same way regardless of scope.

This three-path strategy acknowledges operational reality. Not all roles start in IaC, not all unused roles are safe to delete immediately, and forcing immediate migration isn’t always practical. The solution provides a clear path forward for each scenario: remediate IaC roles through code, give teams actionable recommendations for manually created roles, and safely decommission what’s no longer needed. Over time, your infrastructure becomes increasingly code-driven, and remediation becomes a routine part of your CI/CD process rather than a manual security task.

Consider a company—call them AnyCompany—running 200 IAM roles across three AWS accounts. Some roles were created through AWS CDK stacks during initial deployment. Others were created manually through the console by engineers who needed quick access during incident response or prototyping. A handful haven’t been assumed in over 6 months. AnyCompany’s security team wants to act on their IAM Access Analyzer findings, but each role requires different handling. The solution’s architecture addresses this by routing each finding through a classification and remediation pipeline.

Figure 2 shows how each IAM Access Analyzer finding is processed:

1. The finding is first checked against exclusions and excluded findings are skipped.
2. Remaining findings are split by type: UnusedPermission findings retrieve a recommended policy from IAM Access Analyzer and then query CloudTrail for role origin, while UnusedIAMRole findings follow the unused role path.
3. By origin, IaC-managed roles generate AWS CDK code using Amazon Bedrock and create a pull request.
4. Manually created or unknown-origin roles create an issue with the recommended policy and IaC migration guidance.
5. Unused roles create a soft-disable issue to deny-all, monitor for 30 days, then delete.
6. All paths publish CloudWatch metrics.

Figure 2: Detailed component interactions—the orchestrator’s five steps, its four service integrations, and the three remediation paths

The rest of this section walks through each component using AnyCompany’s roles as examples.

Before processing any finding, the Lambda function loads an exclusion configuration and checks whether the role should be skipped. This prevents the automation from creating remediation items for roles that legitimately need broad permissions.

{
  "excluded_roles": [
    "arn:aws:iam::123456789012:role/BreakGlassRole",
    "arn:aws:iam::123456789012:role/ServiceLinkedRole"
  ],
  "excluded_permissions": [
    "iam:*",
    "sts:AssumeRole"
  ],
  "excluded_by_tag": {
    "NoRemediation": ["true"],
    "CriticalService": ["true"]
  },
  "min_unused_days": 30
}

AnyCompany excludes their break-glass role (used only during incidents), any service-linked roles, and roles tagged CriticalService. The min_unused_days threshold prevents false positives from seasonal workloads; a role that ran a quarterly batch job 25 days ago won’t generate a finding.

IAM Access Analyzer generates two types of findings relevant to this solution. UnusedPermission findings identify roles with permissions that haven’t been exercised within the analysis period. UnusedIAMRole findings identify roles that haven’t been assumed at all. The Lambda function queries both finding types separately because they follow different remediation paths.

The Lambda function auto-detects the analyzer type at startup. When ANALYZER_SCOPE is set to organization, it checks for an ORGANIZATION_UNUSED_ACCESS analyzer first and falls back to ACCOUNT_UNUSED_ACCESS if none exists. If multiple analyzers of the same type exist in the account, the Lambda function selects the first active analyzer returned by the API. To target a specific analyzer, set the ANALYZER_ARN environment variable explicitly. With an organization-level analyzer, findings include roles from all member accounts. The Lambda function extracts the account ID from each finding’s resource ARN (for example, account 111122223333 from arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/MyRole) and carries that context through the entire pipeline: attribution, remediation, and issue or PR creation all include the originating account.

For UnusedPermission findings, the Lambda function calls GenerateFindingRecommendation to initiate policy generation, then retrieves the IAM Access Analyzer-recommended policy through the GetFindingRecommendation API. This is a key integration point: IAM Access Analyzer provides the right-sized policy with unused permissions removed, so the automation doesn’t need to generate policies itself.

Here’s what a typical finding looks like for one of AnyCompany’s application roles:

{
  "id": "a1b2c3d4-5678-90ab-cdef-example11111",
  "resource": "arn:aws:iam::123456789012:role/AnyCompanyOrderProcessorRole",
  "findingType": "UnusedPermission",
  "analyzedAt": "2026-03-01T00:00:00Z",
  "unusedPermissions": [
    { "action": "s3:PutObject", "lastAccessed": null },
    { "action": "s3:DeleteObject", "lastAccessed": null },
    { "action": "s3:PutBucketPolicy", "lastAccessed": null },
    { "action": "dynamodb:DeleteItem", "lastAccessed": null }
  ],
  "activePermissions": [
    { "action": "s3:GetObject", "lastAccessed": "2026-02-28T14:30:00Z" },
    { "action": "s3:ListBucket", "lastAccessed": "2026-02-28T14:30:00Z" },
    { "action": "dynamodb:Query", "lastAccessed": "2026-02-28T12:00:00Z" }
  ]
}

The OrderProcessorRole has write and delete permissions for Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) and Amazon DynamoDB, but only uses read operations. The IAM Access Analyzer recommendation removes the four unused actions while preserving the three active ones.

For UnusedIAMRole findings, no recommendation is needed: the role isn’t being assumed at all, so the remediation is to disable or delete it. The Lambda function caps the number of unused role issues per run (configurable using MAX_UNUSED_ROLE_ISSUES, default 10) to avoid overwhelming teams with a flood of issues on the first execution.

For each finding, the Lambda function queries CloudTrail to determine how the role was created. The CreateRole event contains the information needed to classify the role’s origin.

An IaC-created role looks like this in CloudTrail:

{
  "eventName": "CreateRole",
  "userIdentity": {
    "type": "AWSService",
    "invokedBy": "cloudformation.amazonaws.com"
  },
  "requestParameters": {
    "roleName": "AnyCompanyOrderProcessorRole"
  },
  "userAgent": "cloudformation.amazonaws.com"
}

The cloudformation.amazonaws.com service principal and user agent tell the automation this role was created through a CloudFormation or AWS CDK deployment. The Lambda function then looks up the role’s tags to find the originating repository (stored in a Repository tag set during deployment).

A manually-created role looks different:

{
  "eventName": "CreateRole",
  "userIdentity": {
    "type": "IAMUser",
    "userName": "jstiles"
  },
  "requestParameters": {
    "roleName": "AnyCompanyIncidentResponseRole"
  },
  "userAgent": "console.amazonaws.com"
}

Here, the IAMUser type and console.amazonaws.com user agent indicate someone created this role through the console. Roles created through the AWS CLI show a similar pattern: the IAMUser type with a user agent like aws-cli/2.x.x. The automation classifies both console and AWS CLI-created roles as manually created, because neither has an IaC origin that can be updated programmatically. The automation captures the username and timestamp for the remediation issue.

When the Lambda function processes findings from an organization-level analyzer, the role might live in a different account than the one running the function. The automation handles this by assuming a cross-account role (configurable using CROSS_ACCOUNT_ROLE_NAME, defaulting to OrganizationAccountAccessRole) in the member account, then querying that account’s CloudTrail and IAM APIs for the CreateRole event. If the cross-account assume fails—because the role doesn’t exist in that account or permissions aren’t configured—the automation falls back gracefully, classifying the role as unknown origin and creating an issue with the account ID and available context. This approach helps the automation produce an actionable output for findings even when attribution is incomplete.

For IaC-managed roles with UnusedPermission findings, the Lambda function retrieves the IAM Access Analyzer-recommended policy and sends it to Amazon Bedrock to generate production-ready AWS CDK code. This is an important distinction: IAM Access Analyzer decides what the policy should be, and Amazon Bedrock wraps that policy in the AWS CDK constructs, imports, and resource definitions that the CI/CD pipeline needs to deploy the update.

The prompt instructs Amazon Bedrock to convert the recommended policy to AWS CDK code exactly as provided, with no modifications:

Generate Python CDK code that creates/updates the role with the
RECOMMENDED policy exactly as provided. Include proper imports
(aws_cdk, aws_iam), use CDK best practices (PolicyStatement,
proper resource ARNs), and add tags: ManagedBy=CDK,
RemediatedBy=AccessAnalyzer.

IAM Access Analyzer generates recommendations for both inline policies and customer managed policies. When a managed policy has partially unused permissions, the recommendation contains the full right-sized policy. The automation wraps this in AWS CDK code as an iam.ManagedPolicy construct. Note that if a managed policy is shared across multiple roles, the recommendation applies to the specific role’s usage pattern. In this case, the automation generates an issue for manual review rather than a PR, because modifying a shared policy could affect other roles.

The generated code goes through a validation step before inclusion in any PR. The Lambda function compiles the Python code to check for syntax errors and verifies that required AWS CDK patterns (iam, PolicyStatement) are present. If validation fails, the finding is logged as an error rather than creating a broken PR.

The solution doesn’t currently invoke the IAM Access Analyzer ValidatePolicy API to check the generated policy for errors or overly permissive statements. However, this is a natural extension point. Teams can add a validation step that calls ValidatePolicy on the Amazon Bedrock-generated policy before including it in a PR, detecting issues like missing resource constraints or invalid action names.

Amazon Bedrock also generates a plain-English explanation of the policy changes. For AnyCompany’s OrderProcessorRole, the explanation might read:

“The role currently has full S3 write access and DynamoDB delete permissions, but only uses read operations. Removing s3:PutObject, s3:DeleteObject, s3:PutBucketPolicy, and dynamodb:DeleteItem reduces the scope of impact if credentials are compromised, while preserving the s3:GetObject, s3:ListBucket, and dynamodb:Query permissions the application needs.”

The solution uses the Anthropic Claude Sonnet model on Amazon Bedrock for CDK code generation (where accuracy matters) and Claude Haiku on Amazon Bedrock for explanations (where speed and cost efficiency matter more).

The Lambda function evaluates each finding’s origin and routes it to one of three remediation paths.

Path 1: IaC-managed roles (pull request) – For AnyCompany’s OrderProcessorRole, the automation creates a PR in the originating repository. The PR includes:

• The Amazon Bedrock-generated AWS CDK code implementing the IAM Access Analyzer-recommended policy
• A policy diff showing exactly which permissions are being removed
• The plain-English explanation of what the changes accomplish
• Labels (security, iam-remediation, automated) for filtering and tracking

The team that owns the role reviews the PR through their normal code review process. Once merged, the fix deploys consistently across environments through the existing CI/CD pipeline.

Path 2: Manually-created roles (issue) – For AnyCompany’s IncidentResponseRole, the automation creates an issue that includes the Access Analyzer-recommended policy with unused permissions removed, a diff highlighting the changes, an Amazon Bedrock-generated explanation, and step-by-step guidance on importing the role into IaC. This gives the team an immediate remediation path (apply the recommended policy) while encouraging long-term governance through IaC adoption.

Path 3: Unused roles (soft-disable issue) – For roles that haven’t been assumed at all, the automation creates an issue recommending a three-stage decommission workflow: attach a deny-all policy to the role, monitor for 30 days to confirm no workload depends on it, then delete. This controlled approach reduces the risk of removing a role that’s used infrequently or seasonally – if something breaks during the monitoring period, removing the deny-all policy restores access immediately.

Dry-run mode

Before creating real PRs and issues, you can run the automation in dry-run mode by setting “dry_run": true in the CI/CD configuration or setting the CI_CD_PLATFORM environment variable to dryrun. In this mode, the Lambda function processes findings, classifies roles, and generates remediation data, but logs what it would create instead of making actual API calls to your repository platform. You can use the log to validate the automation’s behavior, review the classification accuracy, and tune exclusions before going live.

Operational metrics

The Lambda function publishes CloudWatch metrics after each run:

These metrics feed into dashboards and alarms. AnyCompany sets an alarm on errors > 5 to catch API throttling or configuration issues, and tracks prs_created + issues_created over time to measure remediation velocity.

The solution ships as two AWS CDK stacks and deploys in minutes. The accompanying GitHub repository contains the complete source code, AWS CDK stacks, configuration templates, and step-by-step deployment instructions.

At a high level, deployment involves:

1. Prerequisites: An AWS account with an ACCOUNT_UNUSED_ACCESS or ORGANIZATION_UNUSED_ACCESS analyzer enabled, Python 3.11 or later, AWS CDK v2, a CI/CD platform API token stored in AWS Secrets Manager, and Amazon Bedrock model access for the Anthropic Claude models you plan to use. The model IDs are configurable environment variables (BEDROCK_CODEGEN_MODEL and BEDROCK_EXPLANATION_MODEL); Amazon Bedrock retires older foundation models over time, so if the shipped defaults stop working, set these variables to current models you have enabled and redeploy. The repository README documents this.
2. Configuration: Two files in the config/ directory control behavior. exclusions.json defines which roles and permissions to skip (break-glass roles, service-linked roles, tagged exceptions), and ci_cd_config.json configures your repository platform integration (GitLab or GitHub), labels, and throttling limits.
3. Deploy: Run cdk deploy --all to create the Lambda function, EventBridge schedule, IAM roles, and CloudWatch alarms.
4. Validate in dry-run mode: Start with “dry_run": true to see how the automation classifies your roles without creating real PRs or issues. Review the CloudWatch logs to confirm attribution accuracy and tune exclusions.
5. Go live: Set “dry_run": false and redeploy. The Lambda function runs on schedule (daily by default) and begins creating PRs and issues.

The repository README covers each step in detail, including organization-wide deployment, cross-account configuration, and platform-specific setup for GitLab and GitHub.

Deploying the automation is only the starting point. Running it in production means making decisions about how roles are retired, how the volume of findings is managed at scale, which roles warrant human review before any change is proposed, and how you measure the automation’s impact over time. The following practices keep remediation sustainable as your IAM footprint grows, so the automation reduces operational burden rather than adding to it.

Unused roles follow a three-stage decommission workflow. When the automation identifies a role that hasn’t been assumed within the analysis period, it creates an issue with the recommended decommission steps; the automation doesn’t modify the role directly. The team then follows the soft-disable approach:

1. Attach a deny-all inline policy to the role. This blocks all actions without deleting the role or its existing policies.
2. Monitor for 30 days. If a workload depends on the role (seasonal jobs, infrequent batch processes), the deny-all policy surfaces the dependency quickly. Removing the deny-all policy restores full access immediately; no need to recreate the role or reattach policies.
3. Delete the role after the monitoring period confirms no impact.

This approach is deliberately conservative. Deleting a role is irreversible; you lose the trust policy, attached policies, and any resource-based policies that reference it. The soft-disable step gives teams a safety net while still making progress on reducing their unused role inventory.

On AnyCompany’s first run, the automation found 47 unused permission findings and 4 unused roles. That’s manageable. But organizations with hundreds of accounts and thousands of roles might see significantly more findings on initial deployment.

This is especially true with an organization-level analyzer. A single-account deployment might surface dozens of findings; an organization-level analyzer across multiple accounts could surface hundreds or thousands on the first run. The throttling controls become critical at this scale.

Two throttling controls prevent the automation from overwhelming teams:

• max_findings_per_run (default 50): Caps the total UnusedPermission findings processed per Lambda function execution. Remaining findings are picked up on the next scheduled run.
• MAX_UNUSED_ROLE_ISSUES (default 10): Caps unused role issues per run. This is especially important during initial deployment when you might have a large backlog of roles that haven’t been assumed in months.

Start with conservative limits and increase them as your team builds confidence in the review process. A team that can review 10 PRs per week shouldn’t receive 50 on Monday morning.

Not every role should receive automated PRs. Roles with administrative permissions or access to sensitive data might warrant manual review before any remediation is created. The exclusion configuration supports this through the approval_required_for_tags field:

{
  "approval_required_for_tags": {
    "Sensitive": ["true"],
    "Admin": ["true"]
  }
}

Roles matching these tags generate issues for manual review instead of automated PRs, regardless of whether they’re IaC-managed. This gives security teams a checkpoint for high-risk roles while still automating remediation for standard application roles.

The metrics published after each Lambda function run (covered in the Technical details section) feed into CloudWatch dashboards and alarms. A few patterns worth setting up:

• Alert on errors > 5 per run to catch API throttling, expired CI/CD tokens, or Amazon Bedrock availability issues.
• Track prs_created + issues_created over time. A healthy trend shows this number decreasing as your environment converges toward least privilege.
• Monitor unused_roles_found as a leading indicator. A sudden increase might signal a team spinning up roles for a project and not cleaning up afterward.
• Compare iac_roles_found to manual_roles_found over time. As teams adopt IaC, the ratio should shift toward IaC-managed roles, which means more automated remediation and less manual work.

The solution uses Lambda (minimal cost at daily execution), CloudTrail (typically already enabled), IAM Access Analyzer (charges per IAM role or user analyzed per month for the unused access analyzer), and Amazon Bedrock (pay-per-token for AWS CDK code generation and explanations). For most organizations the ongoing cost is low, and Amazon Bedrock token usage is the largest variable, scaling with the number of findings processed per day and the complexity of each policy. Review the pricing pages for each service for current rates.

For organization-level deployments, the IAM Access Analyzer cost scales with the number of IAM roles analyzed across all member accounts. The ORGANIZATION_UNUSED_ACCESS analyzer charges per role per month across the organization, so an organization with 500 roles across 20 accounts will see higher analyzer costs than a single account with 50 roles. Review the IAM Access Analyzer pricing page for current rates.

To remove the solution, run cdk destroy --all from the infrastructure/ directory. This removes the Lambda function, EventBridge rule, CloudWatch alarms, and IAM roles created by the stacks.

If you stored a CI/CD platform API token in Secrets Manager as part of deployment, delete it with aws secretsmanager delete-secret --secret-id <your-secret-name> --recovery-window-in-days 7. The 7-day recovery window lets you restore the secret if the deletion was accidental. After 7 days, the secret is permanently deleted and can’t be recovered. To delete immediately without a recovery window, add --force-delete-without-recovery.

Lambda automatically creates a CloudWatch Logs log group at /aws/lambda/<function-name> that persists after cdk destroy --all and continues to incur log storage charges. To remove it, run aws logs delete-log-group --log-group-name /aws/lambda/<function-name>. WARNING: This permanently deletes all execution logs.

The IAM Access Analyzer isn’t created by the AWS CDK stacks. WARNING: Deleting the analyzer permanently removes all findings, analysis history, and unused permission data. Export any findings you need to retain before deletion. After exporting, run aws accessanalyzer delete-analyzer --analyzer-name <your-analyzer-name> to delete it. The ACCOUNT_UNUSED_ACCESS and ORGANIZATION_UNUSED_ACCESS analyzer types incur charges based on the number of IAM roles and users analyzed per month.

If you deployed in organization mode and created cross-account roles (default name: OrganizationAccountAccessRole) in member accounts solely for this solution, remove them from those accounts.

Any PRs or issues already created in your CI/CD platform remain after stack deletion; they’re artifacts in your repository, not AWS resources. See the repository README for detailed cleanup instructions.,

Automating IAM permission remediation turns least privilege from a periodic compliance exercise into an operational practice. By connecting IAM Access Analyzer findings and recommendations to your CI/CD pipeline, remediation shifts from manual security tasks to code review processes that your teams already follow.

The three-path strategy acknowledges how infrastructure evolves. IaC-managed roles receive pull requests with production-ready AWS CDK code and plain-English explanations. Manually created roles receive actionable issues with recommended policies and IaC migration guidance. Unused roles are put on a controlled decommission path that protects against accidental disruption. Over time, the manual role count decreases as teams adopt IaC, and remediation becomes a routine part of your deployment pipeline.

Start with a pilot. Choose 10–20 non-production roles, deploy in dry-run mode, and review the classification results. Tune your exclusions, confirm the CloudTrail attribution is accurate for your environment, and then enable live remediation. Expand to production roles after your team is comfortable with the review cadence.

When you’re ready to scale beyond a single account, switch to an organization-level analyzer and the same Lambda function will process findings across all member accounts with no architectural changes required, only a configuration toggle.

The complete source code, AWS CDK stacks, and configuration templates are available in the accompanying GitHub repository.

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

If you’re running AI agents in production, Amazon Bedrock Guardrails protects the model boundary. But your agents also invoke tools, fetch external data, and communicate with other systems. That data flows outside the model boundary, where model-level guardrails can’t reach.

You can extend guardrail coverage to those interactions using three validation checkpoints built with the Strands Agents SDK lifecycle hooks and Amazon Bedrock guardrails. You implement each checkpoint using a Strands life-cycle hook, which validates data at a critical trust boundary without changing your existing tools or agent logic.

Agents can communicate with other systems through the Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standard for connecting AI systems to data sources and tools. You will learn how to implement three validation checkpoints, scope different guardrails to specific tools, and scale them to other agents.

Amazon Bedrock Guardrails provides protection at the model boundary. Every model invocation is checked: the input prompt is validated before inference, and the model response is validated after inference. You can enforce guardrail use at the account level using AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies, making guardrails mandatory for model calls across your account. You can further refine this by using Amazon Bedrock Guardrails input tagging to mark specific portions of the prompt for evaluation, so trusted content like system prompts can be skipped.

Guardrails cover what the model sees, but agents do more than call models. They invoke tools, pull data from external sources, communicate with MCP servers, and return results to users. These interactions happen outside the model boundary by design, because model-level guardrails focus on the prompts and responses the model itself handles. Adding validation at the tool boundary complements, rather than replaces, that model-level protection.

Model-level guardrails alone leave you exposed in four ways:

• Tool parameters pass through unchecked. The model decides which tool to use and what parameters to pass. The agent then calls the tool with those parameters. No validation sits between the model’s decision and the tool’s execution. If the parameters inadvertently contain personally identifiable information (PII) or policy-violating content, the tool runs with that content.
• External data enters without validation. Agents consume data from tool responses, MCP server outputs, and API calls. Without validation at the tool boundary, content from external sources can influence the agent’s behavior before model-level guardrails have a chance to evaluate it.
• Misleading content can affect reasoning. An agent that retrieves inaccurate or misleading content from an external source might treat it as authoritative, producing skewed recommendations in lending, healthcare, or legal advice.
• Multi-agent systems can spread bad data downstream. In multi-agent systems, a misconfigured or poorly designed upstream component can pass policy-violating content to downstream agents. Model-level guardrails at each agent’s boundary don’t inspect data flowing between agents at the tool layer.

To close these gaps, add three validation checkpoints at each trust boundary where data crosses into or out of your agent as shown in Figure 1.

• Checkpoint 1: Inbound data validation – Check data before it reaches the model—user input, data from other agents, MCP tool servers, and RAG pipelines. You catch policy-violating or biased content before it enters the model’s context window. In the Strands Agents SDK, you implement this using a BeforeInvocationEvent hook that fires before model inference or tool execution occurs. The hook inspects incoming messages and blocks the request if the content violates policies. The model doesn’t see blocked content.
• Checkpoint 2: Tool interaction supervision – Before the agent calls a tool, a BeforeToolCallEvent hook checks the parameters it’s about to pass. This is the gap model-level guardrails don’t cover. The model has already decided what to send, but nothing has verified whether that content is safe to act on. If the hook flags the input, the call is canceled before the real-world action occurs.
• Checkpoint 3: Outbound data validation – Validate results before returning them to the user or passing them to downstream systems. You need this most for tools that ingest external content, like a web search tool fetching web pages from sites outside your control. In Strands, an AfterToolCallEvent hook validates the tool’s return value and replaces it with a block message if the content violates policies.

Figure 1: Three validation checkpoints extend Amazon Bedrock Guardrails from the model boundary to the tool boundary.

You can adjust the validation intensity of each checkpoint:

• At Checkpoint 1, use a full Amazon Bedrock guardrail with PII detection, content filtering, and topic enforcement.
• Checkpoint 2 can be lighter. Configure a separate Amazon Bedrock guardrail with rules tailored to the specific tool being called, or run local checks like regex validation or schema enforcement.
• For Checkpoint 3, focus on unwanted content detection for tool outputs that return external data.

Mix fast deterministic checks (regex, schema validation, allowlists) with AI-based guardrail evaluations. This keeps latency low.

The implementation uses boto3, the AWS SDK for Python, to call the ApplyGuardrail API. The Strands Agents SDK exposes one life-cycle event per checkpoint. Here’s how to implement each one.

This post assumes you already have a working Strands agent. Your agent should use least-privilege tool access, scoped system prompts, and validated business logic. If you’re starting from scratch, see Strands Agents SDK: A technical deep dive into agent architectures and observability for a step-by-step walk through of building and deploying a Strands agent with Amazon Bedrock Agent Core.

Before implementing the multi-checkpoint approach, you’ will need:

1. An AWS account with access to Amazon Bedrock
2. Amazon Bedrock Guardrails configured (see Creating a guardrail)
3. Python 3.11 or later installed
4. The Strands Agents SDK installed: pip install strands-agents
5. AWS credentials configured with permissions for bedrock:ApplyGuardrail and bedrock:InvokeModel
6. Your guardrail ID and version from the AWS Management Console for Amazon Bedrock (navigate to Guardrails, select your guardrail, and copy the ID)

The GuardrailHook class is a Strands HookProvider. It registers three callbacks, one for each lifecycle event. When Strands triggers an event, the matching callback runs validate_inbound checks user messages, validate_input checks tool parameters before execution, and validate_output checks tool results. All three use the shared _check method, which calls the Amazon Bedrock ApplyGuardrail API.

Create a guardrail_hook.py file and add this implementation. Use the optional tool_names parameter to scope a hook to specific tools, or pass None to apply it everywhere:

import boto3
from strands.hooks import HookProvider, HookRegistry
from strands.hooks.events import (
    BeforeInvocationEvent,
    BeforeToolCallEvent,
    AfterToolCallEvent,
)

class GuardrailHook(HookProvider):

    def __init__(self, guardrail_id, guardrail_version, region_name, tool_names=None):
        self.client = boto3.client("bedrock-runtime", region_name=region_name)
        self.guardrail_id = guardrail_id
        self.guardrail_version = guardrail_version
        self.tool_names = tool_names  # None = apply to all tools

    def register_hooks(self, registry: HookRegistry, **kwargs):
        registry.add_callback(BeforeInvocationEvent, self.validate_inbound)
        registry.add_callback(BeforeToolCallEvent, self.validate_input)
        registry.add_callback(AfterToolCallEvent, self.validate_output)

    def _check(self, content, source="INPUT"):
        """Call Bedrock ApplyGuardrail. Returns True if content is safe."""
        response = self.client.apply_guardrail(
            guardrailIdentifier=self.guardrail_id,
            guardrailVersion=self.guardrail_version,
            source=source,       # "INPUT" applies input policies; "OUTPUT" applies output policies
            content=[{"text": {"text": content}}],
        )
        return response["action"] != "GUARDRAIL_INTERVENED"

    # Checkpoint 1 — BeforeInvocationEvent
    # Validates user input before model inference or tool execution occurs.
    # The model does not see blocked content.
    async def validate_inbound(self, event: BeforeInvocationEvent):
        for msg in reversed(event.messages):
            if msg.get("role") == "user":
                for block in msg.get("content", []):
                    text = block.get("text", "")
                    if text and not self._check(text):
                        event.messages.clear()
                        event.messages.append({
                            "role": "user",
                            "content": [{"text": "Request blocked by safety guardrail."}],
                        })
                        return
                break

    # Checkpoint 2 — BeforeToolCallEvent
    # Validates tool input parameters before the tool executes.
    # Skips tools not in tool_names (if a filter is set).
    async def validate_input(self, event: BeforeToolCallEvent):
        if self.tool_names and event.tool_use.get("name") not in self.tool_names:
            return
        tool_input = event.tool_use.get("input", {})
        for param_value in tool_input.values():
            if isinstance(param_value, str) and not self._check(param_value):
                event.cancel_tool = "This request was blocked by a safety guardrail."
                return

    # Checkpoint 3 — AfterToolCallEvent
    # Validates tool output before it reaches the agent.
    # Skips tools not in tool_names (if a filter is set).
    async def validate_output(self, event: AfterToolCallEvent):
        if self.tool_names and event.tool_use.get("name") not in self.tool_names:
            return
        content_parts = [
            block["text"]
            for block in event.result.get("content", [])
            if "text" in block
        ]
        content = "\n".join(content_parts)
        if content and not self._check(content, source="OUTPUT"):
            event.result = {
                "toolUseId": event.result["toolUseId"],
                "status": "error",
                "content": [{"text": "Content blocked by safety guardrail."}],
            }

Strands discovers tools through the @tool decorator. The decorator turns a plain Python function into a tool the model can call, using the function’s docstring and type hints as the tool’s contract. Here are two simple examples used in the registration sections below. A web search tool and a customer data tool:

from strands import tool

@tool
def web_search(query: str) -> str:
    """Search the web and return a result snippet."""
    # Replace with your actual search implementation
    return f"Search results for: {query}"

@tool
def get_customer_data(customer_id: str) -> str:
    """Retrieve customer record by ID."""
    # Replace with your actual data lookup implementation
    return f"Customer record for: {customer_id}"

If you don’t have existing tools, create a tools.py file and copy in the example code above.

Strands activates hooks through the hooks parameter on the Agent constructor. After being registered, the hook’s callbacks run automatically on every matching lifecycle event. No changes are needed in your tools or agent logic. For a single guardrail applied to all tools, create one hook instance and pass it to your agent:

from strands import Agent
from strands.models import BedrockModel
from guardrail_hook import GuardrailHook
from tools import web_search, get_customer_data # Example tools - replace with your tools

# Example model and region selection
model = BedrockModel(
    model_id="us.anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-5",
    region_name="us-east-1",
)

guardrail_hook = GuardrailHook(
    guardrail_id="your-guardrail-id",    # Copy it from the Amazon Bedrock console > Guardrails
    guardrail_version="1",               # Use "DRAFT" for testing
    region_name="us-east-1",             # Region where the guardrails are defined
)

agent = Agent(
    model=model,
    tools=[web_search, get_customer_data], # Example tools
    system_prompt="You are a helpful assistant.", # Example system prompt
    hooks=[guardrail_hook],  # Applied to all tool calls
)

Different tools carry different risks. A web search tool fetches external content from untrusted sites and needs strict output filtering. A customer data tool returns internal records and might need PII detection configured differently. The tool_names parameter scopes a hook to specific tools. Strands still runs every registered hook on each event, but hooks skip the call when the tool name doesn’t match. Register one hook per guardrail:

from strands import Agent
from strands.models import BedrockModel
from guardrail_hook import GuardrailHook
from tools import web_search, get_customer_data # Example tools - replace with your tools

# Example model and region selection
model = BedrockModel(
    model_id="us.anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-5",
    region_name="us-east-1",
)
# Strict content filtering and PII detection for web search results
web_search_hook = GuardrailHook(
    guardrail_id="gr-websearch-id",      # Guardrail ID with content filtering + PII detection
    guardrail_version="1",               # Or set to DRAFT
    region_name="us-east-1",             # Change to your region
    tool_names={"web_search"},           # Only applies to the web_search tool
)

# PII detection for customer data — prevents sensitive records from leaking into tool parameters
customer_data_hook = GuardrailHook(
    guardrail_id="gr-customerdata-id",   # Guardrail ID with PII detection
    guardrail_version="1",               # Or set to DRAFT
    region_name="us-east-1",             # Change to your region
    tool_names={"get_customer_data"},    # Only applies to the get_customer_data tool
)

agent = Agent(
    model=model,
    tools=[web_search, get_customer_data],        # Example tools
    system_prompt="You are a helpful assistant.", # Example system prompt
    hooks=[web_search_hook, customer_data_hook],  # Each hook runs only for its assigned tools
)

Each guardrail is configured independently in the Amazon Bedrock console. You can match validation strictness to each tool’s risk level instead of applying one policy across your entire agent.

Run a quick test with the preceding examples:

1. Create a project folder and add the following files:
   1. guardrail_hook.py the GuardrailHook class
   2. tools.py the web_search and get_customer_data tool definitions as examples
   3. agent.py the agent setup from the Register the hook section
2. In agent.py, add a test prompt at the end:

# Send a test prompt
response = agent("Search the web for the latest news on AI security.")
print(response)

3. Update the guardrail IDs, AWS Region, and model ID in agent.py to match your configuration.
4. Run the agent from your project folder: python agent.py

The guardrail hook runs at each checkpoint. If the prompt or any tool output is flagged, you’ll see the block message in the response instead of the tool result.

The GuardrailHook is a standalone HookProvider. Build it once, then attach it to Strands agents by passing it to the hooks parameter. The same hook package can be published as an internal library and consumed by

• Multiple agents within a single application
• Agents deployed across different runtimes (AWS Lambda, Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS), Amazon Bedrock Agent Core Runtime)
• Teams across an organization, with environment-specific guardrail IDs injected through configuration (for example, dev, staging, prod)

You can swap guardrail configurations or add checks like regex or schema validation without touching agent or tool code.

Amazon Bedrock Guardrails protects the model boundary, but agents also call tools, consume external data, and return results that never pass through model-level checks. The three validation checkpoints in this post close that gap using Strands Agents SDK lifecycle hooks: BeforeInvocationEvent validates user input, BeforeToolCallEvent validates tool parameters, and AfterToolCallEvent validates tool output. The same GuardrailHook class supports one shared guardrail or different guardrails scoped per tool, and deploys unchanged from local testing to Amazon Bedrock Agent Core Runtime.

To learn more, see:

• Amazon Bedrock Guardrails
• Amazon Bedrock Agent Core
• Strands Agents SDK
• OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications

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

This post assumes familiarity with envelope encryption and the AWS Encryption SDK.

When your encryption system generates millions of duplicate API calls per hour, costs spiral and performance degrades. That’s exactly the challenge NICE Actimize faced while operating their global-scale, event-driven financial crime detection platform on Amazon Web Services (AWS).

NICE Actimize, a leading provider of financial crime, risk, and compliance solutions, processes millions of encrypted messages daily across hundreds of tenants. By rethinking how they cache encryption keys, they reduced their AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) costs by 77% while maintaining strict security guarantees and per-tenant encryption isolation.

In this post, we explore the cache stampede problem that emerges when envelope encryption meets high-concurrency, multi-tenant architectures. We walk through two solutions: the AWS-recommended hierarchical keyring pattern and a custom caching approach that NICE Actimize built for their regulated environment. These patterns apply to multi-tenant software as a service (SaaS) environments and high-throughput systems where per-tenant encryption generates significant KMS API volume.

Financial services systems operate under strict regulatory requirements. You must encrypt data at rest and in transit. For multi-tenant SaaS providers, this requirement might go further: each tenant’s data must be encrypted with separate keys to provide complete cryptographic isolation. If one tenant’s key is compromised, no other tenant’s data is at risk.

Consider an enterprise SaaS environment built on an event-driven architecture using Amazon Managed Streaming for Apache Kafka (Amazon MSK), with many different databases for storing data and Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) for messaging. Messages flow continuously between producers and consumers, and each message must be encrypted with the correct tenant-specific key. At scale with millions of messages daily across hundreds of tenants, this creates a massive volume of encryption and decryption operations.

To handle this volume efficiently, the standard approach is envelope encryption: a two-tier model where an AWS KMS key encrypts short-lived data keys, and those data keys encrypt the actual data. Your application can encrypt large volumes of data locally without calling AWS KMS for every operation, reducing latency and costs.

Envelope encryption reduces AWS KMS calls, but it doesn’t eliminate them. Each encrypt operation still requires a data key, either generated fresh using GenerateDataKey or retrieved from a cache, and each decrypt operation must unwrap an encrypted data key (EDK) by calling Decrypt. In high-throughput systems processing millions of messages, these calls add up quickly.

The AWS Encryption SDK provides a built-in solution for this: the CachingCryptoMaterialsManager. This component caches data encryption materials (data keys) locally, so your application can reuse them across multiple operations without calling AWS KMS each time. You configure a time-to-live (TTL), a maximum message-use limit, and a local cache, and the SDK handles the rest.

This approach works well under moderate load when you partition the cache by tenant AWS KMS key Amazon Resource Name (ARN) so that each tenant’s encryption materials remain cryptographically isolated. However, a critical problem emerges as concurrency scales to hundreds of threads processing millions of encrypted messages in parallel: the cache stampede, also known as the thundering herd problem.

The CachingCryptoMaterialsManager caches the result of the SDK’s internal getMaterialsForEncrypt and decryptMaterials calls at the materials level. The cache stampede, however, happens at the KMS API call level. When a cached data key expires or a new, previously-unseen EDK arrives, the following sequence unfolds:

1. On encrypt – data key explosion: Multiple threads simultaneously call encrypt() for the same tenant. Each thread finds the cache entry expired and independently calls GenerateDataKey against AWS KMS. Instead of one thread generating a data key while others wait, N threads create N distinct data keys. Each new data key produces a unique EDK, which inflates the EDK cardinality across the system.
2. On decrypt – redundant unwrap calls: Those extra unique EDKs propagate downstream. When consumers later read encrypted records, each distinct EDK is a separate cache key. Multiple threads encountering the same EDK simultaneously each trigger an independent Decrypt call to AWS KMS because the cache has no coordination mechanism to make competing threads wait for a single in-flight request.
3. Compounding effect: The encrypt-side stampede creates excess EDK cardinality, which degrades the decrypt-side cache hit ratio, which triggers more KMS calls, which drives up costs further. In the NICE Actimize case, this produced a ratio of 30% unique data keys to data records in DynamoDB tables, meaning nearly one in three records was encrypted with a different data key.

At enterprise SaaS scale, this compounding effect can generate millions of redundant AWS KMS GenerateDataKey and Decrypt calls per hour, even with the SDK’s built-in caching enabled. The following figure shows the pattern leading to a stampede.

Figure 1: Cache stampede – multiple threads independently calling AWS KMS for the same encrypted data key, creating duplicate requests

The stampede follows this sequence on the encrypt side:

1. Multiple threads call encrypt() for the same tenant concurrently.
2. Each thread checks the CachingCryptoMaterialsManager and finds the cache entry expired.
3. With no coordination mechanism, each thread independently calls GenerateDataKey.
4. AWS KMS returns N distinct data keys (one per thread).
5. Each data key produces a unique EDK, inflating cardinality across the system.

On the decrypt side, the inflated EDK cardinality compounds the problem:

6. Consumer threads encounter unique EDKs that were never cached.
7. Multiple threads hitting the same EDK simultaneously each trigger a separate Decrypt call. AWS KMS returns the same plaintext data key N times, doing redundant work.

We evaluated two approaches to solve the cache stampede problem. Each fits different architectural requirements and regulatory constraints.

AWS addresses the cache stampede challenge through the hierarchical keyring pattern, which introduces an additional level of key hierarchy that significantly reduces how often cache stampedes occur.

In this architecture, branch keys serve as intermediate wrapping keys stored in a DynamoDB table. This DynamoDB table acts as a shared cache layer that coordinates across all instances in your distributed fleet.

Figure 2: Hierarchical keyring architecture – branch keys in DynamoDB coordinating across distributed instances

The architecture (shown in Figure 2) works as follows:

1. The application requests encryption through the hierarchical keyring.
2. The keyring checks the local cache for the tenant’s branch key.
3. On a cache miss, it queries the DynamoDB Key Store table for the active branch key.
4. AWS KMS decrypts the branch key (this is the only KMS call in the flow).
5. The decrypted branch key is returned to the keyring.
6. The keyring stores the branch key in the local cache for subsequent requests.
7. The keyring derives a unique wrapping key from the branch key and generates the data key locally.

The key insight is that the cache is thread-aware. When the cache expires, threads coordinate to make a single request to refresh the cache. Only a single thread is used to make a call to the branch key, rather than all the threads acting independently. Additionally, by adding an additional key into the key hierarchy, branch keys don’t live within AWS KMS. This means cache misses and the stampedes they trigger interact with the branch key, and don’t make as many calls to the AWS KMS service at the top of the hierarchy:

• Without hierarchical keyrings: Your local cache needs to store all the data encryption keys, and has constant misses as new, unique data keys arrive with each encrypted message. A miss can trigger a stampede.
• With hierarchical keyrings: The same branch key wraps thousands or millions of data keys. A cache miss only occurs when a branch key expires or is first requested, which happens orders of magnitude less frequently than without hierarchical keyrings.

The DynamoDB table acts as a coordination point. The first thread to request a missing branch key retrieves it from AWS KMS and stores it in DynamoDB (the Key Store table). Subsequent requests from instances in the fleet retrieve the cached branch key from DynamoDB instead of making duplicate AWS KMS calls.

Beyond reducing cache miss frequency, the hierarchical keyring provides built-in stampede protection within its local cache implementation. The SDK offers multiple cache types, and the Default cache, designed for heavily multi-threaded environments, prevents multiple threads from calling AWS KMS on cache expiry by notifying a single thread that the branch key materials entry is about to expire 10 seconds in advance. That one thread refreshes the cache while all other threads continue serving requests using the still-valid entry.

This solution integrates with the AWS Encryption SDK and requires minimal code changes to existing applications. For event-driven architectures processing encrypted Kafka streams, this approach reduces KMS call volume by orders of magnitude while preserving per-tenant cryptographic isolation.

While the hierarchical keyring (Option A) addresses the stampede by reducing how often cache misses occur, there’s a complementary approach: eliminating the stampede at its source by caching KMS API responses directly, using atomic, single-flight cache loading that prevents concurrent threads from issuing duplicate calls. This is the path NICE Actimize took.

The IClientSupplier extension point in AWS Encryption SDK v3

In the AWS Encryption SDK v2, decorating the AWS KMS client on a per-request basis was possible through the RegionalClientSupplier interface, but it was an advanced and undocumented use case. Without explicit guidance or a supported pattern, caching strategies typically operated above the SDK layer, making it difficult to prevent duplicate KMS calls at their source. The AWS Encryption SDK v3 introduced the IClientSupplier interface, which the AwsKmsMrkMultiKeyring accepts at construction time. This interface is called by the SDK whenever it needs a KMS client for a given AWS Region, and you control what it returns, making it possible to insert a caching layer between the SDK and AWS KMS.

Architecture: A decorated KMS client with two Caffeine caches
The solution is a CachedKmsClient—a decorator that wraps the standard AWS SDK KmsClient and interposes two Caffeine LoadingCache instances between the application and AWS KMS:

Both caches are configured with refreshAfterWrite (default: 1 hour, configurable), which means:

• During the refresh window, concurrent threads receive the cached response instantly resulting in zero KMS calls.
• When a cache entry expires, Caffeine’s LoadingCache.get() guarantees that exactly one thread executes the loader function (the actual KMS API call), while all other concurrent threads block and wait for that single result. This is the atomic, single-flight property that eliminates the stampede.

Security consideration: Caching plaintext data keys in memory means the keys exist in process memory for the duration of the cache TTL. The TTL acts as a security control: shorter TTLs reduce the window of exposure in the event of a memory dump, while longer TTLs reduce KMS call volume. Choose a TTL that balances your security requirements with your cost and performance goals. Key rotation at the KMS key level remains unaffected by the cache, because rotated keys produce new data keys on the next cache refresh.

Integration with the AWS Encryption SDK v3

The integration is minimal. The IClientSupplier AWS Lambda function returns a CachedKmsClient singleton for each AWS Region, this singleton is passed into the AwsKmsMrkMultiKeyring at keyring construction time. From that point forward, each GenerateDataKey and Decrypt call the SDK makes flows through the caching decorator transparently, with no changes to the encrypt or decrypt call sites.

The CachedKmsClient is a singleton per Region (managed using a ConcurrentHashMap), so all tenants on the same node share the same caching layer but their data keys remain fully isolated because the cache keys include the tenant-specific AWS KMS key ARN.

Why Caffeine?

Caffeine is a high-performance, near-optimal Java caching library well-suited for this pattern for several reasons:

• Atomic loading: LoadingCache.get() guarantees that on a cache miss, only one thread executes the loader while others wait. This is the core property that eliminates the stampede.
• refreshAfterWrite semantics: Unlike expireAfterWrite (which blocks all threads during refresh), refreshAfterWrite allows one thread to asynchronously reload the entry while other threads continue to serve the stale-but-valid cached value. This eliminates latency spikes during key rotation.
• Observability: Cache eviction listeners and Micrometer metric counters can be wired in to track actual KMS call volume per tenant KMS key, enabling real-time cost monitoring.

The hierarchical keyring with DynamoDB (Option A) is a production-ready, AWS-recommended solution that reduces stampede frequency by introducing longer-lived branch keys. It’s the best choice for most organizations. Particularly when starting fresh or when the operational overhead of an additional data store is acceptable.

NICE Actimize chose the custom caching approach (Option B) for a pragmatic reason: it avoided introducing a new infrastructure dependency into the encryption critical path. Their platform already operated at scale across hundreds of tenants, and adding a DynamoDB table as a key coordination layer would have meant taking on additional operational responsibility: provisioning, monitoring, backup, access control, and ensuring high availability for a component that sits directly in the encrypt/decrypt hot path. In a regulated financial services environment, each new stateful component in the security chain requires its own resilience planning, failure-mode analysis, and compliance review. The Caffeine cache used in Option B, by contrast, is an in-process library (a JAR on the classpath). It is stateless, requires no network calls, no provisioning and no operational overhead. It makes a lighter dependency than a managed cloud resource in the critical path. There is no shared state to lose, no additional infrastructure to protect, and no new failure mode beyond what already exists with AWS KMS itself. If a node restarts, the cache rebuilds on the next KMS call.

By implementing a rotation policy with the optimized caching approach, NICE Actimize achieved the following results:

• 77% reduction in AWS KMS costs – Eliminating millions of redundant API calls translated directly into significant cost savings.
• Maintained strict per-tenant isolation – Per-tenant encryption isolation remained fully intact, with no compromise to their security posture.
• Improved system performance – Removing the stampede of duplicate AWS KMS calls reduced latency and freed up system resources for core processing.
• Simplified operations – A coordinated caching layer replaced fragmented, per-thread caching, reducing operational complexity.

The cache stampede problem compounds in multi-tenant encryption systems: excess data key generation on the encrypt side degrades cache hit ratios on the decrypt side, creating a feedback loop of redundant KMS calls. The AWS-recommended hierarchical keyring pattern with DynamoDB provides a production-ready solution that integrates with the AWS Encryption SDK with minimal code changes. For regulated environments requiring additional control, a custom caching approach can deliver similar results.

If you operate a multi-tenant SaaS platform or a high-throughput system with per-tenant encryption requirements, consider these patterns to optimize your encryption costs and performance.

To get started, explore the following resources:

• AWS Encryption SDK Developer Guide
• AWS KMS Developer Guide
• Amazon DynamoDB Developer Guide
• Amazon MSK Developer Guide

If you have questions or feedback about this post, leave a comment in the Comments section.

Software as a service (SaaS) providers building AI-powered applications on Amazon Bedrock AgentCore often need to serve multiple tenants with distinct security requirements from a shared infrastructure. Some tenants require cross-account access from their own Amazon Web Services (AWS) accounts, while others mandate that traffic stay within a private virtual private cloud (VPC) for regulatory compliance. Without centralized resource-level control, managing these diverse requirements can be complex.

AgentCore supports resource-based policies, giving you centralized, resource-level control over who can access your AgentCore Runtime and AgentCore Runtime endpoint resources and under what conditions.

In this post, you walk through a multi-tenant AI customer service platform where two tenants need different levels of access to the same agent. You learn how to use resource-based policies on AgentCore to grant cross-account access for one tenant while restricting another to VPC-only traffic—all while sharing the same underlying AgentCore Runtime and AgentCore Runtime endpoint.

Imagine you’re an SaaS provider who builds and operates an AI-powered customer service platform. You use AgentCore to deploy intelligent agents that handle customer inquiries, answering product questions, processing returns, and escalating complex issues to human agents.

You serve multiple enterprise clients (tenants), each with their own AWS account and unique security requirements:

• Tenant A: Example Corp is a large retailer operating in AWS account 111122223333. Their development team is building a customer-facing chat agent that calls your AI agent to answer product questions in real time, and their admin team needs access to test agent behavior and monitor responses. Both roles must invoke the agent directly from Example Corp’s own AWS account without you having to share credentials or create AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) users on their behalf. Example Corp has no network restriction requirements—their teams can invoke the agent from any network path as long as they have valid AWS credentials.
• Tenant B: AnyCompany is a healthcare company operating in AWS account 444455556666. Because of regulatory (HIPAA) requirements, AI agent traffic must originate only from their private VPC (vpc-health1234). Their internal support staff uses the AI agent to assist with patient billing inquiries, which might involve protected health information (PHI). Their compliance team mandates that no API call to the agent can be made from developer laptops, public endpoints, or any network outside the controlled VPC boundary.
• Your platform (SaaS provider) runs in account 555555555555 in the us-west-2 AWS Region. You operate an AgentCore Runtime (support-agent-runtime) that handles the core customer service logic, and an AgentCore Runtime endpoint (DEFAULT) that routes requests to the latest version of the support agent. Both tenants share this same agent infrastructure.

You can use resource-based policies to define who can access your AgentCore Runtime and AgentCore Runtime endpoint directly on the resources themselves—centralizing access control on the resource side. For cross-account scenarios like Example Corp, both a resource-based policy on your resources and an identity-based policy in the tenant’s account are required. For VPC-restricted scenarios like AnyCompany, you can use specific IAM conditions to enforce that requests originate only from an approved VPC, adding a network-level security boundary on top of identity-based controls.

The following diagram shows the architecture for the multi-tenant AI customer service platform with both access patterns.

Figure 1: Architecture for the multi-tenant AI customer service platform with both access patterns

• Your account (555555555555) with AgentCore Runtime and AgentCore Runtime endpoint
• Example Corp’s account (111122223333) with DeveloperRole and AdminRole
• AnyCompany’s account (444455556666) with VPC boundary and ApplicationRole
• Policy enforcement points on both resources
• VPC endpoint in AnyCompany’s VPC connecting to AgentCore

The SaaS provider account (555555555555) hosts the AgentCore Runtime and AgentCore Runtime endpoint that both tenants share. Example Corp (111122223333) accesses the agent cross-account using IAM roles—DeveloperRole and AdminRole—authenticated with Signature Version 4 (SigV4), the standard AWS request signing protocol. AWS evaluates both the resource-based policy on your resources and the identity-based policy in Example Corp’s account before granting access.

AnyCompany (444455556666) also accesses the agent cross-account, but with an additional constraint: all requests must originate from within their private VPC (vpc-health1234) through a VPC endpoint for AgentCore. The resource-based policy on your resources includes an explicit Deny statement that blocks any request from AnyCompany’s ApplicationRole when it doesn’t originate from the approved VPC.

In both cases, resource-based policies must be applied to both the AgentCore Runtime and AgentCore Runtime endpoint. AWS evaluates policies on both resources for InvokeAgentRuntime operations—if either resource denies access or lacks an explicit Allow, the request is denied.

Before you begin, ensure you have the following:

• An AWS account with AgentCore access and permissions to call PutResourcePolicy, GetResourcePolicy, and DeleteResourcePolicy on AgentCore resources
• AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) v2 installed and configured with the bedrock-agentcore-control API available
• An AgentCore Runtime with SigV4 authentication and a DEFAULT AgentCore Runtime endpoint pointing to the latest runtime version

For the VPC-restricted scenario, the tenant must have a VPC endpoint for AgentCore configured in their VPC. An interface VPC endpoint creates a private connection between the tenant’s VPC and the AgentCore service without requiring traffic to traverse the public internet. For more information, see Interface VPC endpoints for Amazon Bedrock AgentCore.

Both Example Corp and AnyCompanyoperate in separate AWS accounts from your platform. For cross-account access to AgentCore Runtime, AWS requires that both of the following allow the action:

• A resource-based policy in your platform account applied to both the AgentCore Runtime and its AgentCore Runtime endpoint. InvokeAgentRuntime operations require an explicit Allow on both resources—if either lacks one, the request is denied.
• An identity-based policy attached to the caller’s IAM role in the tenant’s account.

If either side is missing or denies the action, the request is denied.

Example Corp’s DeveloperRole and AdminRole in account 111122223333 need to invoke your AI customer service agent. Without resource-based policies, enabling this cross-account access would typically require Example Corp’s roles to assume a role in your platform account through IAM role chaining—adding operational complexity, introducing temporary credential management, and creating additional IAM roles that must be maintained in your account for each tenant. With resource-based policies, you grant Example Corp’s roles direct access to your AgentCore Runtime and AgentCore Runtime endpoint without role chaining. Example Corp’s roles can invoke the agent directly from their own account using their own credentials, while you maintain centralized control over access on the resource side.

AgentCore Runtime resource-based policy

The following policy grants Example Corp’s DeveloperRole and AdminRole permission to invoke the agent runtime. This is the first of two resource-based policies required—it controls access to the runtime resource itself. Save this as runtime-policy.json:

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "AllowExampleCorpCrossAccountAccess",
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Principal": {
        "AWS": [
          "arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/DeveloperRole",
          "arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/AdminRole"
        ]
      },
      "Action": "bedrock-agentcore:InvokeAgentRuntime",
      "Resource": "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime"
    }
  ]
}

AgentCore Runtime endpoint resource-based policy

The following policy grants the same roles permission to invoke the AgentCore Runtime endpoint. Without this second policy, requests are allowed at the runtime level but denied at the endpoint level, and the invocation fails. Save this as endpoint-policy.json:

{
    "Version": "2012-10-17",
    "Statement": [
        {
            "Sid": "AllowExampleCorpCrossAccountAccess",
            "Effect": "Allow",
            "Principal": {
                "AWS": [
                    "arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/DeveloperRole",
                    "arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/AdminRole"
                ]
            },
            "Action": "bedrock-agentcore:InvokeAgentRuntime",
            "Resource": "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:999999999999:runtime/support-agent-runtime/runtime-endpoint/DEFAULT"
        }
    ] 
}

To apply the resource-based policies

aws bedrock-agentcore-control put-resource-policy \--resource-arn arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime \--policy file://runtime-policy.json \--region us-west-2
aws bedrock-agentcore-control put-resource-policy \--resource-arn arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime/runtime-endpoint/DEFAULT \--policy file://endpoint-policy.json \--region us-west-2

To verify the resource-based policies

aws bedrock-agentcore-control get-resource-policy \--resource-arn arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime \--region us-west-2
aws bedrock-agentcore-control get-resource-policy \--resource-arn arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime/runtime-endpoint/DEFAULT \--region us-west-2

Configure an identity-based policy (Example Corp’s account)

Resource-based policies alone aren’t sufficient for cross-account access. Example Corp must also attach an identity-based policy to DeveloperRole and AdminRole in their account (111122223333) that allows the same action on your resources. Without this policy on the tenant side, IAM denies the cross-account request even though your resource-based policies allow it.

Example Corp attaches the following policy to both DeveloperRole and AdminRole:

{
    "Version": "2012-10-17",
    "Statement": [
        {
            "Sid": "AllowInvokeAgentRuntime",
            "Effect": "Allow",
            "Action": "bedrock-agentcore:InvokeAgentRuntime",
            "Resource": [
                "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime",
                "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime/runtime-endpoint/DEFAULT"
            ]
        }
    ] 
}

Attach this policy to both DeveloperRole and AdminRole in Example Corp’s account.

AnyCompany operates under HIPAA compliance requirements and mandates that all traffic to your agent stays within a private network path. Like Example Corp, AnyCompany needs cross-account access from account 444455556666—but with an additional constraint, requests must originate from their VPC vpc-health1234 through an interface VPC endpoint. Any request from outside this VPC is denied, even if it comes from AnyCompany’s ApplicationRole.

Resource-based policies (your platform account): To enforce this, you update the resource-based policies on both the AgentCore Runtime and AgentCore Runtime endpoint. Each policy includes an Allow statement that grants ApplicationRole permission to invoke the agent, paired with a Deny statement that blocks any request not originating from vpc-health1234. In the following policy, the Deny statement uses StringNotEquals on aws:SourceVpc . When a request arrives through an interface VPC endpoint, AWS populates this key with the VPC ID. If it doesn’t match vpc-health1234, or if the key is absent because no VPC endpoint was used, the Deny takes effect. Because an explicit Deny overrides any Allow from any policy, this pattern helps ensure that no other identity-based or resource-based policy can inadvertently grant AnyCompany access from outside the VPC. Add the following statements to runtime-policy-v2.json alongside the Example Corp statement from Step 1:

{
  "Sid": "AllowAnyCompanyCrossAccountAccess",
  "Effect": "Allow",
  "Principal": {
    "AWS": "arn:aws:iam::444455556666:role/ApplicationRole"
  },
  "Action": "bedrock-agentcore:InvokeAgentRuntime",
  "Resource": "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime"
},
{
  "Sid": "DenyAnyCompanyOutsideVpc",
  "Effect": "Deny",
  "Principal": {
    "AWS": "arn:aws:iam::444455556666:role/ApplicationRole"
  },
  "Action": "bedrock-agentcore:InvokeAgentRuntime",
  "Resource": "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime",
  "Condition": {
    "StringNotEquals": {
      "aws:SourceVpc": "vpc-health1234"
    }
  }
}

AgentCore Runtime endpoint resource-based policy

Add the equivalent statement to endpoint-policy-v2.json:

{
    "Sid": "AllowAnyCompanyCrossAccountAccess",
    "Effect": "Allow",
    "Principal": {
        "AWS": "arn:aws:iam::444455556666:role/ApplicationRole"
    },
    "Action": "bedrock-agentcore:InvokeAgentRuntime",
    "Resource": "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime/runtime-endpoint/DEFAULT"
},
{
    "Sid": "DenyHealthFirstOutsideVpc",
    "Effect": "Deny",
    "Principal": {
        "AWS": "arn:aws:iam::444455556666:role/ApplicationRole"
    },
    "Action": "bedrock-agentcore:InvokeAgentRuntime",
    "Resource": "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime/runtime-endpoint/DEFAULT",
    "Condition": {
        "StringNotEquals": {
            "aws:SourceVpc": "vpc-health1234"
        }
    }
}

Because put-resource-policy replaces the entire policy on a resource, your updated policy files must include both the preceding AnyCompany statments and the Example Corp statements from Step 1.

Apply the updated resource-based policies

aws bedrock-agentcore-control put-resource-policy \
	--resource-arn arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime \
	--policy file://runtime-policy-v2.json \
	--region us-west-2 

aws bedrock-agentcore-control put-resource-policy \
	--resource-arn arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime/runtime-endpoint/DEFAULT \
	--policy file://endpoint-policy-v2.json \
	--region us-west-2

Verify the updated policies

After applying the final policies, verify them using the get-resource-policy command:

# Verify Agent Runtime policy 
aws bedrock-agentcore-control get-resource-policy \
	--resource-arn arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime \
	--region us-west-2 

# Verify Agent Runtime Endpoint policy 
aws bedrock-agentcore-control get-resource-policy \
	--resource-arn arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime/runtime-endpoint/DEFAULT \
	--region us-west-2

Identity-based policy (AnyCompany’s account)

AnyCompany must attach an identity-based policy to ApplicationRole in their account 444455556666 that allows the same InvokeAgentRuntime on your resources in account 555555555555. Without this policy on the tenant side, IAM denies the cross-account request even though your resource-based policies allow it.

AnyCompany attaches the following policy to ApplicationRole:

{
    "Version": "2012-10-17",
    "Statement": [
        {
            "Sid": "AllowInvokeAgentRuntime",
            "Effect": "Allow",
            "Action": "bedrock-agentcore:InvokeAgentRuntime",
            "Resource": [
                "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime",
                "arn:aws:bedrock-agentcore:us-west-2:555555555555:runtime/support-agent-runtime/runtime-endpoint/DEFAULT"
            ]
        }
    ] 
}

The VPC restriction is enforced entirely on resource account through the resource-based policy condition, AnyCompany’s identity-based policy doesn’t need VPC conditions. This keeps the tenant-side configuration straightforward while you maintain centralized network-level control.

OAuth authentication considerations

The policies in this post use SigV4 authentication with specific IAM role principals. If your AgentCore Runtime or AgentCore Gateway is configured with OAuth authentication instead, the principal structure changes. OAuth-authenticated resources require a wildcard principal (“Principal": "*") because the caller identity comes from a JSON Web Token (JWT) validated before policy evaluation. Anonymous or unauthenticated requests are rejected before the policy is evaluated, so the wildcard principal doesn’t grant open access. To restrict OAuth-authenticated requests to a specific VPC, combine the wildcard principal with a VPC condition in the resource-based policy. IAM principal-based condition keys such as aws:PrincipalAccount and aws:PrincipalOrgID aren’t populated in the OAuth authentication context—only supported network-level condition keys (such as aws:SourceVpc, aws:SourceVpce, aws:SourceIp) are available for use in resource-based policies with OAuth. For more details, see Resource-based policies for Amazon Bedrock AgentCore.

Understanding policy evaluation

To understand how AWS evaluates these policies when a request arrives, consider the following scenarios:

In this post, you learned how to use resource-based policies on AgentCore to secure a multi-tenant AI platform with distinct access patterns for each tenant:

• Example Corp gets seamless cross-account integration, their development and admin teams can invoke your AI agent directly from their own AWS account without credential management.
• AnyCompany gets the strict network-level isolation their compliance team requires, the AI agent is accessible only from within their private VPC, ensuring that interactions involving potential PHI — stay within the controlled network boundary

Both tenants share the same underlying AgentCore Runtime and AgentCore Runtime endpoint, yet each has tailored security controls enforced at the resource level. his approach avoids per-tenant infrastructure duplication while satisfying each tenant’s security posture, a challenge you likely face when onboarding tenants with different compliance postures. Resource-based policies complement identity-based IAM policies, giving you layered control over which principals can invoke which agents, and from which network paths.

• Learn more about Amazon Bedrock AgentCore in the official documentation
• Review resource-based policies for Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
• Explore other AWS global condition keys including aws:SourceVpce and aws:PrincipalOrgID
• Visit the AWS Well-Architected Framework Security Pillar for multi-tenancy best practices

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

Managing identities and access across complex environments has become more critical than ever. AWS Directory Service for Managed Microsoft Active Directory, also known as AWS Managed Microsoft AD, has added new capabilities to manage users and groups. Now, you can perform create, read, update, and delete (CRUD) operations on users and groups directly through AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI), APIs, and the AWS Management Console. You can use this powerful capability to automate identity lifecycle management and enhance security in your AWS environment. By using these APIs, collectively known as the Directory Service Data APIs, you can perform operations such as:

• Listing users and groups
• Retrieving user and group details
• Disabling and enabling user accounts
• Resetting user passwords
• Managing group memberships

These APIs provide new possibilities for automating identity management tasks and integrating Active Directory management into your existing workflows and applications.

The introduction of these APIs brings several key benefits:

• Automation of the identity lifecycle: You can now programmatically manage user accounts throughout their lifecycle—from creation to deletion—enabling streamlined onboarding and offboarding processes.
• Enhanced security: By integrating these APIs with security services like Amazon GuardDuty, you can create automated responses to potential security threats, such as disabling accounts with inappropriate access.
• Improved compliance: You can use automated user management to help enforce consistent policies and help maintain compliance with various regulatory requirements.
• Operational efficiency: You can automate routine tasks such as user provisioning, deprovisioning, and group management, reducing manual effort and the potential for human error.
• Integration capabilities: By using these APIs, you can seamlessly integrate with existing identity management systems, custom applications, and third-party tools.
• Cost optimization: By automating processes and reducing manual intervention, you can potentially help your organization optimize operational costs associated with identity management.

In this post, we explore these new APIs and demonstrate how you can use them to create an automated solution for detecting and responding to unexpected behavior by Active Directory users. We walk through a practical example that combines GuardDuty, AWS Step Functions, Amazon EventBridge, and the new AWS Directory Service APIs to create a robust security automation workflow.

To demonstrate the power of these new APIs, let’s explore a practical solution that automates the detection and response to unexpected behavior by Active Directory users. This solution combines several AWS services to create a robust security automation workflow:

1. 1. GuardDuty continuously monitors for unexplained behavior of Active Directory users from AWS Managed Microsoft AD. For the example in this post, we’re using Backdoor:Runtime/C&CActivity.B!DNS
   2. An EventBridge rule detects GuardDuty findings related to these users and triggers a Step Functions workflow.

      {
        "detail-type": ["GuardDuty Finding"],
        "source": ["aws.guardduty"],
        "detail": {
          "type": ["Backdoor:Runtime/C&CActivity.B!DNS"]
        }
      }

   3. The Step Functions workflow will:
      1. Extract the Active Directory username from the instance using a run command.
      2. Start an automation that will disable the account using the DisableUser API.

Figure 1: Diagram of the Step Functions workflow showing the process of Systems Manager finding the username and starting the automation to disable the account

4. Finally, another EventBridge rule will monitor the DisableUser API call. It will send an email to the user using Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) notifications.

   {
     "detail-type": ["AWS API Call via CloudTrail"],
     "source": ["aws.ds"],
     "detail": {
       "eventSource": ["ds.amazonaws.com"],
       "eventName": ["DisableUser"]
     }
   }

This solution delivers automated, near real-time remediation of potential security threats — significantly reducing exposure windows and containing the impact of unauthorized account access.

The following figure shows a high-level architecture diagram of the solution.

Figure 2: Diagram showing the workflow of what happens when potentially damaging activity is detected

Note: The solution must be deployed in the primary AWS Region of your directory.

To complete the walkthrough in this post, you must have the following prerequisites in place.

GuardDuty is an automated threat detection service that continuously monitors for unexpected activity and unauthorized behavior to protect your AWS accounts, workloads, and data stored in Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3).

To activate GuardDuty:

1. Go to the GuardDuty console.
   1. If you’re activating GuardDuty for the first time, under Try threat detection with GuardDuty, select All Features and then choose Get Started.
   2. If you’ve used GuardDuty before, select Runtime Monitoring and then choose Enable under Runtime Monitoring.

Figure 3: Runtime Monitoring enabled

AWS Managed Microsoft AD provides a fully managed service for Microsoft Active Directory (AD) in the AWS Cloud. When you create your directory, AWS deploys two domain controllers that are exclusively yours in separate Availability Zones for high availability. For use cases that require even higher resilience and performance in a specific AWS Region or during specific hours, you can scale AWS Managed Microsoft AD by deploying additional domain controllers to meet your needs. These domain controllers can help load balance, increase overall performance, or provide additional nodes to protect against temporary availability issues. Using AWS Managed Microsoft AD, you can define the correct number of domain controllers for your directory based on your use case.

To deploy a new AWS Managed Microsoft AD:

1. Go to the Directory Service console.
2. Choose Set up directory and select AWS Managed Microsoft AD.
3. Select Standard Edition and enter a directory DNS name and password.
4. Select a virtual private cloud (VPC). For this example, use the Default VPC.
5. Choose Create directory.

# 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!"

To generate alerts on GuardDuty, you need a domain joined Linux EC2 instance. If you don’t have a domain joined EC2 Linux instance, follow these instructions for joining a Linux instance to an Active Directory domain. This instance will be used to simulate suspicious activity that triggers a GuardDuty finding and initiates the automated remediation workflow.

Let’s walk through the steps to implement this solution in your AWS environment.

1. Download the CloudFormation template
2. Navigate to the CloudFormation console in the AWS account.
3. For Create Stack, choose with new resources (standard).
4. For Template source, choose Upload a template file. Choose Choose file and select the template you downloaded in step 1.
5. Choose Next.
6. For Stack name, enter a stack name (such as CRUD-API-MAD).
7. In the Parameters area, do the following:
   1. For DirectoryID, enter the AWS Active Directory ID.
   2. For NotificationEmail, enter the email address to send the notification to.
8. On the Configure stack options page, choose Next.
9. Select I acknowledge that AWS CloudFormation might create IAM resources with custom names, then choose Submit.

After the page is refreshed, the status of your stack should be CREATE_IN_PROGRESS. When the status changes to CREATE_COMPLETE, proceed to the next section.

To simulate a threat, use a GuardDuty test domain that GuardDuty will recognize as a command and control server.

1. Go to the Amazon EC2 console.
2. Choose Instances from the navigation pane.
3. Select the test EC2 instance that you created earlier.
4. Choose Connect, select the Session Manager tab, and choose Connect.
5. Authenticate with your test user by entering su followed by the test user with the domain name that you created earlier. For example su TestUser@example.com, then enter the password.
6. Enter the command curl guarddutyc2activityb.com.
   You will receive an error because the page won’t resolve, but GuardDuty will have detected concerning events.
7. Go to the GuardDuty console and select Findings from the navigation pane.
8. Within 3–5 minutes, you should see a high severity finding for Backdoor:Runtime/C&CActivity.B!DNS.
9. This will then trigger the automation to disable the account.
   
   

   Figure 4: Account successfully disabled

10. After the account is disabled, an email notification will be sent notifying an administrator that the account was disabled (it might take up to 5 minutes to receive the notification).
    

    Figure 5: AWS notification message showing the username has been disabled

Note: You must archive the GuardDuty finding before running this test again, because the EventBridge rule only runs once against a GuardDuty finding with the same details. To archive the finding, select the check box next to the Backdoor:Runtime/C&CActivity.B!DNS finding, choose Actions (top right), and select Archive.

The new AWS Directory Service APIs for AWS Managed Microsoft AD provide powerful capabilities for programmatically managing Active Directory users and groups. By using these APIs in conjunction with services such as Amazon GuardDuty and AWS Step Functions, you can create sophisticated automation workflows that enhance your security posture and streamline identity management processes.

The solution we’ve explored in this post demonstrates just one of many possible use cases for these new APIs. As you integrate these capabilities into your own environments, you will probably discover numerous opportunities to improve efficiency, security, and compliance in your identity management practices.

For a solution that uses PowerShell Active Directory cmdlets with AWS Systems Manager Run Command to disable users, see How to automatically disable users in AWS Managed Microsoft AD based on GuardDuty findings.

For more information about AWS Directory Service and its APIs, visit the AWS Directory Service documentation.

We’re excited to see how you’ll use these new APIs to innovate and improve your identity management workflows. If you have any questions or want to share your own use cases, leave a comment below or reach out to AWS Support.

Remember, the cloud journey is all about continuous improvement and innovation. Keep exploring, keep learning, and keep pushing the boundaries of what’s possible with AWS.