CIS AWS Foundations v1.2 1.7: Ensure IAM password policy requires at least one symbol

The target keyword—cis aws foundations v1.2 1.7: ensure iam password policy requires at least one symbol requirement—maps to a specific, testable configuration in AWS: the IAM account password policy. This is a baseline control intended to reduce the risk of weak, easily guessed passwords for IAM users that authenticate with a password (for example, console users). It does not govern federated SSO password rules (IdP-controlled), and it does not directly apply to access keys, roles, or instance profiles. It is narrow by design, which makes it fast to implement but also easy to “half-pass” if you set it once and never show ongoing proof.

Most compliance teams fail this control in one of two ways: (1) no single owner can show how the password policy is enforced and monitored across accounts, or (2) they rely on screenshots without a repeatable evidence trail. This page gives you requirement-level implementation guidance: who owns it, exactly what to change, how to validate it, what evidence to retain, and how to handle real exceptions without creating audit debt. Sources for the benchmark and AWS’s mapping are the CIS benchmark and AWS Security Hub mapping documentation. ¹

Regulatory text

Requirement statement (provided excerpt): “Implement CIS AWS Foundations Benchmark v1.2 requirement 1.7 as mapped in AWS Security Hub.” ¹

Operator meaning: Configure the AWS account’s IAM password policy so that passwords for IAM users must include at least one symbol (non-alphanumeric character). Then operate the control: monitor drift and remediate accounts that fall out of compliance, using AWS Security Hub’s CIS mapping (IAM.13) as a detection signal. ¹

Plain-English interpretation

If your organization still has IAM users who sign in with a password, you need an AWS account-level policy that blocks passwords that do not contain a symbol (for example, ! @ # $). This is one part of a broader password policy, but this requirement focuses on the symbol rule specifically. Expect assessors to confirm:

• The policy is enabled in each in-scope AWS account.
• The setting is enforced (passwords without symbols cannot be set).
• You can show ongoing checks and remediation for drift.

Who it applies to

Entities

• Any organization operating workloads in AWS and aligning to the CIS AWS Foundations Benchmark v1.2. ²

Operational context (what systems and identities)

• Applies to: AWS IAM users with console passwords in each AWS account where IAM is used.
• Does not replace: Your enterprise IdP password policy for federated access (SSO), because IAM password policy only governs IAM user passwords.
• Practical scoping note: Many mature AWS shops try to eliminate IAM users in favor of federation. Even then, you still must configure the IAM password policy because “no IAM users today” can become “an emergency IAM user tomorrow.”

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

Step 1: Assign control ownership and operating cadence

Create a simple control card (one page is enough) with:

• Owner: Cloud Security or IAM Platform Owner.
• Approver: CISO/CCO delegate for exceptions.
• Trigger events: New AWS account created, new OU onboarded, M&A account ingestion, break-glass user creation.
• Operating cadence: At least recurring checks plus event-driven checks after account provisioning.

This addresses a common audit failure mode: nobody can explain how the setting stays enforced after day one. ²

Step 2: Inventory in-scope AWS accounts

You need an authoritative account list (Organizations is typical) and a clear statement of scope:

• Production accounts
• Shared services
• Sandboxes and labs (decide, document, enforce)

Record the scope decision in your GRC system so exceptions are deliberate, not accidental.

Step 3: Check current IAM password policy setting

Run an account-level check for each AWS account:

• Console path: IAM → Account settings → Password policy → confirm “Require at least one non-alphanumeric character” is enabled.
• CLI path (auditor-friendly):
  • aws iam get-account-password-policy
  • Look for the field that corresponds to requiring symbols (AWS typically exposes this as a boolean in the returned policy document).

If the account has no password policy configured, that is effectively a failure for this benchmark expectation because the requirement expects explicit enforcement, not defaults. ²

Step 4: Set “require at least one symbol” in the password policy

Apply the password policy in each account:

• Enable Require at least one symbol (non-alphanumeric character).
• Keep the policy consistent with your broader password standard (length, reuse prevention, expiration) where feasible, but do not dilute the symbol requirement.

Implementation methods (choose one; document it):

• Manual console update (acceptable for a small footprint, but evidence tends to be weak).
• CLI automation (aws iam update-account-password-policy with the appropriate flags).
• Infrastructure-as-code (preferred for repeatability), plus drift detection.

Step 5: Decide how you handle break-glass and legacy exceptions

You will get pushback from:

• Legacy automation that sets passwords without symbols.
• Vendor-provided appliances with password constraints.
• Rare operational break-glass procedures.

Handle it with an exception rule that includes:

• Business justification and affected accounts/users.
• Compensating controls (for example, enforced MFA for the affected IAM users, restricted permissions, short-lived access, additional monitoring).
• A removal plan and re-test criteria.

Avoid “silent exceptions” where teams simply don’t implement the policy in a subset of accounts. That shows up quickly in Security Hub and during audits.

Step 6: Turn on detection and continuous monitoring (Security Hub)

Use AWS Security Hub’s CIS mapping for ongoing visibility. For this requirement, the mapped control is IAM.13. ³

Operationalize monitoring:

• Route failed findings to your ticketing system (Jira/ServiceNow).
• Define severity as “baseline configuration drift” and set remediation SLAs internally.
• Track closure with evidence: before state, change record, after state.

Step 7: Validate the control actually blocks non-compliant passwords

A lightweight validation step makes audits smoother:

• Attempt to set a password for a test IAM user that lacks a symbol and confirm AWS rejects it.
• Store the test record (ticket comment + timestamped CLI output or console message) as part of your control operation evidence.

Do this in a non-production account if your change management process is strict.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep an evidence bundle that a third-party auditor can re-perform:

Configuration evidence ²

• CLI output from aws iam get-account-password-policy showing the symbol requirement is enabled.
• Or equivalent exported configuration record from your configuration management/IaC pipeline.

Monitoring evidence

• AWS Security Hub screenshot/export showing IAM.13 status, or an extract of findings for the review period. ³

Operational evidence

• Control card/runbook with owner, cadence, and steps.
• Change records (tickets) for any remediation.
• Exception register entries with approvals and expiry.

Retention

• Store evidence in a controlled repository (GRC tool, ticketing system attachments, or a compliance evidence bucket with access logging). Focus on retrievability by account and period.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

1. “Is this set in every AWS account in scope?”
   Have an account list, a compliance snapshot, and an explanation for any out-of-scope accounts.

2. “Does this apply if we use SSO?”
   Yes if IAM users exist or can be created. IAM password policy is still an account baseline. Document how SSO reduces reliance on IAM users, but keep the control enabled.

3. “Show me ongoing operation.”
   Provide Security Hub trend evidence plus tickets that show drift detection and closure. ³

4. “What about subsidiaries or acquired accounts?”
   Show a standard onboarding checklist that includes setting the IAM password policy immediately after account access is established.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake	Why it fails	Fix
Setting the policy once and relying on screenshots	Screenshots don’t show ongoing operation or coverage across accounts	Use CLI exports + Security Hub findings + tickets per review cycle 3
Assuming SSO means IAM password policy is irrelevant	Emergency IAM users and legacy IAM users still exist	Keep the policy enabled regardless; document IAM user minimization separately
Not documenting exceptions	Auditors treat unexplained gaps as control failure	Maintain an exception register with expiry and compensating controls
Inconsistent account configuration	Drift occurs as teams create new accounts	Add the step to account vending/onboarding and run recurring checks

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement, so you should treat it as a baseline security expectation rather than a directly fine-driven rule. The practical risk is straightforward: weak password composition increases the chance of account compromise for IAM console users, especially where IAM users are long-lived or poorly governed. Tie your internal risk statement to credential compromise, unauthorized console access, and downstream impacts (data access, resource manipulation, incident response costs), without making numeric claims you cannot source.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (stabilize and implement)

• Assign an owner and publish the runbook/control card.
• Inventory accounts and confirm which ones are in scope.
• Enable “require symbol” in each in-scope account and record configuration evidence.
• Turn on or confirm Security Hub coverage for the CIS mapping, and confirm IAM.13 produces findings as expected. ³

Days 31–60 (operationalize and reduce drift)

• Automate checks (scheduled CLI job, config rules, or IaC compliance checks).
• Integrate Security Hub findings to ticketing with a defined workflow.
• Create an exception process with a standard template and approval path.

Days 61–90 (prove sustained operation)

• Run at least one full control health check cycle and close findings to “validated.”
• Sample-test: pick a subset of accounts, re-pull password policy output, and compare to your recorded evidence.
• Review whether IAM users still exist; if they do, confirm MFA and least privilege are enforced as separate controls.

Where Daydream fits naturally: If you struggle to keep ownership, evidence bundles, and recurring control checks consistent across accounts, Daydream can track the control card, required evidence, exceptions, and remediation tickets as a single requirement workflow so you can answer audits without rebuilding the story each time.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this requirement apply if all users authenticate through an external IdP (SSO)?

You should still set the IAM password policy because IAM users can be created for break-glass or legacy access. Document that SSO governs primary access, but keep the account baseline enforced.

What exactly counts as a “symbol” for AWS IAM password policy?

AWS treats this as a “non-alphanumeric character” requirement in the IAM password policy setting. Confirm behavior by testing a password without symbols and verifying the console or API rejects it.

Will enabling this break existing IAM users?

It typically affects password changes rather than immediately invalidating existing passwords, but you should confirm your org’s change behavior with a test user. Plan for communication and a controlled password reset process if needed.

How do auditors expect me to prove compliance across multiple AWS accounts?

Provide an account inventory, per-account password policy output (CLI export is strongest), and Security Hub evidence showing IAM.13 status plus remediation tickets for any drift. ³

We have a legacy third party integration that can’t handle symbols. What’s the compliant approach?

Put the integration on an exception with a defined expiry, restrict permissions, enforce MFA where possible, and isolate the account or user. Track a remediation plan to remove the exception rather than letting it persist indefinitely.

Is a screenshot of the IAM console enough evidence?

A screenshot can support evidence, but auditors usually need repeatable proof and coverage across accounts. Pair screenshots with CLI output and Security Hub findings tied to a review cycle. ³

Footnotes

1. CIS AWS Foundations Benchmark; AWS Security Hub CIS AWS Foundations mapping table

2. CIS AWS Foundations Benchmark

3. AWS Security Hub CIS AWS Foundations mapping table