CIS AWS Foundations v1.2 1.8: Ensure IAM password policy requires at least one number

The cis aws foundations v1.2 1.8: ensure iam password policy requires at least one number requirement is a baseline identity hardening check for AWS accounts that still allow IAM users to sign in with local passwords. Even if your organization primarily uses SSO or federation, this control matters because IAM users often persist for break-glass access, legacy applications, or operational edge cases. If the password policy is weak, a single compromised IAM user can become a fast path to privilege escalation and persistent access.

This requirement is also straightforward to implement, which makes it a common “easy finding” in security reviews and customer diligence: teams either set it once and forget evidence, or assume “we use SSO” means it does not apply. The operational goal is simple: make the account-level IAM password policy require at least one number, then prove it stays that way across accounts and over time.

AWS Security Hub maps this benchmark requirement to a specific CIS check (IAM.14), which is useful for continuous verification and for producing audit-ready screenshots/exports without manual re-checking. ¹

Requirement: what it means in plain English

You must configure the AWS account-level IAM password policy so that any IAM user password must include at least one numeric digit (0–9). This is a minimum complexity requirement intended to reduce the likelihood of weak passwords.

Scope clarification that prevents audit friction:

• In scope: IAM users who authenticate to the AWS Management Console using an IAM password in the account.
• Out of scope for this specific control: Access key usage, MFA settings, password rotation, minimum length, and SSO/IdP password rules (those may be separate requirements).
• Still relevant even with SSO: If IAM users exist (including break-glass), the policy applies to them.

Benchmark context: this is CIS AWS Foundations Benchmark v1.2 control 1.8, implemented as mapped in AWS Security Hub. ²

Regulatory text

Excerpt (provided): “Implement CIS AWS Foundations Benchmark v1.2 requirement 1.8 as mapped in AWS Security Hub.” ²

Operator interpretation: Configure the IAM password policy so “Require at least one number” is enabled, and manage it as an operating control. “As mapped in AWS Security Hub” means you can (and should) use Security Hub’s CIS control mapping (IAM.14) as a continuous compliance signal and evidence source. ¹

Who it applies to

Entity scope

• Any organization operating AWS accounts and using (or potentially using) IAM users for console access. ³

Operational scope

• Applies per AWS account, because the IAM password policy is account-scoped.
• Applies to production and non-production if those accounts allow IAM user console login (auditors often sample across environments).
• Applies regardless of industry; CIS is a benchmark standard commonly adopted as a baseline control set. ³

Typical owners

• Cloud Security / Security Engineering: control design, monitoring, and exception handling.
• Cloud Platform / IAM Team: implementation via IaC / org guardrails.
• Compliance/GRC: control documentation, evidence standards, and audit coordination.

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

Step 1: Confirm your authentication model and exposure

1. Inventory whether IAM users exist and whether console passwords are enabled for any of them.
2. Identify any “break-glass” IAM users and confirm they are covered by policy and monitored.

Practical note: Even if you intend to remove IAM users, auditors will still test the current state. Implement the policy now; remove IAM users as a separate initiative.

Step 2: Set the IAM password policy to require a number

You can implement via console, CLI, or infrastructure as code. Pick one “source of truth” and document it.

Option A — AWS Console

1. Go to IAM → Account settings (or Password policy depending on console view).
2. Edit the password policy.
3. Enable “Require at least one number”.
4. Save changes.

Option B — AWS CLI (repeatable and scriptable)

• Read current policy:
  • aws iam get-account-password-policy
• Set/update policy with number requirement:
  • aws iam update-account-password-policy --require-numbers

(Keep your exact command flags aligned with your broader policy settings; don’t accidentally weaken other settings while “fixing” this one.)

Option C — IaC / guardrails

• Implement the desired setting using your standard IaC pattern and deploy across accounts.
• Pair with detective controls (Security Hub) so drift is visible.

Step 3: Verify via Security Hub CIS mapping (IAM.14)

1. Ensure Security Hub is enabled in the account/region(s) you use for compliance reporting.
2. Locate the CIS AWS Foundations checks and confirm IAM.14 reflects a passing state after the policy change. ¹
3. If you run multi-account, centralize findings aggregation so you can show org-wide status during audits.

Step 4: Make it an operating control (not a one-time change)

Auditors and customers expect you to prove sustained operation, not a single screenshot.

Implement three lightweight governance elements (aligned to common control expectations):

• Control card/runbook: Objective, owner, systems in scope, how implemented, and what constitutes a failure.
• Evidence bundle definition: Exactly what you save each cycle and where it lives.
• Recurring health checks: A scheduled review of Security Hub status and remediation tracking to closure.

These are also the fastest way to stop “we can’t find evidence” escalations during diligence.

Step 5: Exception handling (rare, but you need a process)

Sometimes teams request exceptions for legacy integrations or managed users.

If you grant an exception:

• Require compensating controls (for example: enforce MFA on the IAM user, restrict permissions, and monitor usage).
• Time-box the exception and track remediation to remove the exception.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Retain evidence that proves (a) configuration is set correctly, and (b) you monitor it.

Minimum evidence bundle (practical and audit-friendly):

• Configuration proof
  • Output of aws iam get-account-password-policy showing number requirement enabled, or console screenshot with timestamp.
• Detective control proof
  • Security Hub finding status for CIS mapping control IAM.14 showing “passed” (export or screenshot). ¹
• Operational artifacts
  • Named control owner and runbook/control card.
  • Ticket(s) or change record for the policy update (including approval where required).
  • Exception register entries (if any), with compensating controls and expiry.
• Retention location
  • A stable repository (GRC tool attachment, evidence drive, or ticketing system) with access controls and an audit trail.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Auditors and customer security reviewers tend to focus on these:

1. “Show me the account password policy.”
   Have the CLI output or console capture ready, per sampled account.

2. “How do you know it stays enabled?”
   Point to Security Hub CIS IAM.14 status and your review cadence. ¹

3. “Does this apply if you use SSO?”
   Answer plainly: the CIS requirement is about IAM user password policy; if IAM users exist, the policy must be set even if SSO is primary.

4. “Who owns remediation?”
   Provide the owner and workflow (ticket routing, SLA expectations, escalation path).

5. “Are there exceptions?”
   If yes, show the exception register and compensating controls; if no, state “no exceptions permitted.”

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

Mistake	Why it fails	How to avoid
Assuming SSO makes the requirement irrelevant	IAM users still exist for break-glass/legacy; auditors sample configuration	Implement the policy regardless; separately reduce IAM user footprint
Setting the policy once, keeping no evidence	You will fail diligence even if technically compliant	Define an evidence bundle and store it centrally every review cycle
Fixing one account, ignoring the rest	IAM password policy is per-account	Roll out via org guardrails/IaC and verify across accounts
Relying only on screenshots	Screenshots lack depth and are hard to trend	Pair screenshots with CLI output and Security Hub exports
“Drift” after account vending	New accounts may start noncompliant	Bake the setting into account provisioning and verify with Security Hub

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided for this specific CIS AWS Foundations requirement in the source catalog. What matters operationally is how this shows up in real oversight: customers and auditors frequently treat CIS-aligned failures as indicators of weak identity governance, especially when the fix is straightforward.

Risk you are reducing:

• Weak IAM passwords are easier to guess, spray, or brute force.
• Compromised IAM console access can lead to privilege escalation, creation of persistent access paths, and broader account takeover.

Treat this control as a baseline signal: if the team cannot keep a simple password policy enabled, reviewers may question your ability to sustain higher-complexity controls.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (Immediate hardening and proof)

• Assign control owner and document the control card (objective, scope, systems, exceptions).
• Set Require at least one number in each in-scope AWS account IAM password policy.
• Validate pass status in Security Hub for CIS IAM.14 in each account you report on. ¹
• Create an evidence folder structure and save baseline artifacts (CLI output, Security Hub export/screenshot, change record).

By 60 days (Standardize and reduce drift)

• Implement the policy through your standard provisioning mechanism (IaC or account vending process).
• Centralize Security Hub reporting (or your SIEM intake) so failures trigger tickets.
• Add exception workflow: request, approval, compensating controls, expiry, and periodic review.

By 90 days (Operate it like a control)

• Run a formal control health check and record results (pass/fail by account, remediation tickets, closures).
• Test the audit response: have someone outside the cloud team pull evidence using your runbook.
• If you use Daydream for compliance operations, map this requirement to a control record, attach the evidence bundle template, and track recurring checks so evidence is generated on schedule instead of during audit crunch.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this apply if we only use AWS IAM Identity Center (SSO) and have no IAM users?

If you truly have no IAM users with console passwords, the practical risk is low, but the benchmark check is still about the account password policy setting. Many teams keep at least one break-glass IAM user, so set the policy anyway and avoid debate during audits.

What AWS Security Hub control corresponds to this CIS requirement?

AWS Security Hub maps this to CIS control IAM.14 under the CIS AWS Foundations benchmark. Use that mapping to validate and produce continuous compliance evidence. ¹

Will enabling “require a number” break anything?

It only affects future IAM password creation/changes for IAM users. Existing users may be forced to update passwords depending on your broader password policy and user lifecycle, so coordinate with the IAM user owners.

Is a number requirement sufficient password complexity for audits?

For this specific requirement, yes: you must require at least one number. Auditors may also test related CIS password policy items (length, reuse prevention, rotation), so keep your password policy settings consistent across the full CIS set. ³

How do we prove this control is operating over time?

Pair configuration evidence (get-account-password-policy output or console capture) with an ongoing detective signal like Security Hub’s IAM.14 status and a documented review cadence with tracked remediation.

We manage many AWS accounts. What’s the cleanest way to keep this consistent?

Treat it as an organization baseline: enforce via your account provisioning/IaC pattern, then detect drift with Security Hub aggregation. Auditors respond well to “prevent + detect + evidence” packaged under a named owner.

Footnotes

1. AWS Security Hub CIS AWS Foundations mapping table

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

3. CIS AWS Foundations Benchmark