Safeguard 10.5: Enable Anti-Exploitation Features

Safeguard 10.5 sits in CIS Controls v8 under Malware Defenses and focuses on reducing exploitability. The practical intent is straightforward: even if an attacker reaches a vulnerable process, your operating systems and supported applications should have defensive features enabled that disrupt exploitation chains and reduce successful code execution. CIS frames it as a safeguard because these settings are often available “for free” in modern platforms, but they tend to be inconsistently enabled, overwritten by legacy app compatibility choices, or left unmeasured.

For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the fastest path is to convert 10.5 into an enforceable baseline with measurable coverage. Your goal is not to describe mitigations in policy language. Your goal is to prove, with system-generated artifacts, that anti-exploitation features are enabled across in-scope endpoints and servers, that exceptions are rare and approved, and that you continuously detect and correct drift. This page gives you requirement-level implementation guidance you can hand to endpoint engineering, server engineering, and security operations, and then audit against.

Regulatory text

Framework requirement: “CIS Controls v8 safeguard 10.5 implementation expectation (Enable Anti-Exploitation Features).” (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Operator interpretation: Enable anti-exploitation features available in your platforms and enforce them consistently. In practice, examiners and customer assessors expect you to:

• Identify which features apply to each supported OS and environment you run.
• Configure those features as hardened defaults (baselines), not as optional settings.
• Deploy and enforce configuration centrally.
• Measure coverage and manage exceptions with compensating controls and time bounds.

This requirement is satisfied by provable enforcement (policy + configuration + telemetry), not by intent statements.

Plain-English interpretation (what this means day to day)

Anti-exploitation features are OS and application-level protections that make common exploit techniques unreliable. For a GRC owner, this is a “make exploitation harder everywhere” control with three measurable outcomes:

1. A defined baseline: a documented list of anti-exploitation protections you require per OS class (Windows/macOS/Linux) and, where relevant, per server role.
2. Central enforcement: settings are deployed through standard configuration tooling (MDM, GPO, configuration management) with limited local override.
3. Ongoing proof: you can show current-state compliance reports and a workflow for exceptions and remediation.

Who it applies to

Entity scope: Any enterprise or technology organization implementing CIS Controls v8 (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8).

Operational scope (typical):

• Endpoints: corporate laptops/desktops, VDI images, privileged workstations.
• Servers: on-prem and cloud VMs, application servers, remote access/bastion hosts.
• Golden images: base VM images, workstation builds, container host images (where OS-level features apply).
• High-risk apps: browsers, document readers, office suites, scripting runtimes, and any user-facing services where exploitation is a common initial access method.

Common scoping decisions you must make and document:

• Which OS versions are supported and eligible for enforcement.
• Which assets are excluded (for example, specialized OT systems) and what compensating controls apply.
• Which environments must meet the baseline (prod, corporate, dev, test). Most teams enforce broadly but allow documented dev exceptions where justified.

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

Use the steps below as your implementation runbook for the safeguard 10.5: enable anti-exploitation features requirement (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8).

Step 1: Create a control card (ownership + operating model)

Write a one-page “control card” that includes:

• Objective: Enable and enforce anti-exploitation features on in-scope systems.
• Control owner: endpoint engineering or platform security, with a named backup.
• Operators: endpoint admins, server admins, cloud platform team.
• Cadence: continuous enforcement plus recurring compliance checks.
• Trigger events: new OS version adoption, new golden image, EDR/MDM migration, major app compatibility issues, new business unit onboarding.
• Exception rules: who can approve, required compensating controls, time bounds, and revalidation steps.

This is the artifact auditors use to test whether the control is “owned” and repeatable.

Step 2: Define the baseline by OS and environment

Build a minimum baseline matrix. Keep it short and enforceable. Example structure:

Platform	Required anti-exploitation features (examples)	Enforcement method	Notes
Windows endpoints	DEP/NX, ASLR, CFG, OS exploit protection rules	MDM/GPO/endpoint config	Align to supported OS build
Windows servers	Same as above plus server-role constraints	GPO/CM tool	Validate against app compatibility
macOS	System Integrity Protection, hardened runtime where applicable	MDM + config profiles	Validate for managed fleet
Linux	ASLR, NX, compiler hardening for internal builds	Config management	Focus on server images

You do not need to list every possible mitigation under the sun. You need a baseline you can enforce and measure. Tie each baseline item to a configuration source of truth.

Step 3: Deploy centrally and prevent local override

Pick the deployment channel per platform and document it in the control card:

• Windows: Group Policy, Intune/MDM, or equivalent configuration management.
• macOS: MDM configuration profiles.
• Linux: configuration management with enforced state.

Design requirement: local admins should not be able to disable protections without generating an exception ticket and leaving evidence.

Step 4: Instrument compliance measurement (coverage + drift)

Define what “compliant” means in reporting terms:

• Asset is in scope (CMDB/asset inventory).
• Asset reports current configuration state (MDM/EDR/config agent).
• Anti-exploitation settings match the baseline.
• Exceptions are tagged and traceable to approvals.

Then implement:

• A compliance dashboard (even a weekly export at first) that shows coverage and lists non-compliant assets.
• Drift detection: when settings change, generate an alert or ticket.
• Remediation SLAs: define internal targets for how quickly exceptions or drift must be remediated. These are internal commitments; keep them consistent with your risk appetite and operational capacity.

Step 5: Exception handling that doesn’t become a back door

Most failures of 10.5 come from “temporary” compatibility exceptions that never expire.

Minimum exception workflow:

1. Requestor states business justification and affected assets.
2. Security reviews risk and confirms whether a compensating control is required (for example, extra monitoring, network segmentation, restricted privileges).
3. Approver signs off (security + system owner).
4. Exception gets an expiry and a revalidation date.
5. Closure requires evidence that baseline is re-enabled or the asset is removed from scope.

Track exceptions in a single system (GRC tool, ticketing system, or Daydream), with searchable fields: system ID, setting waived, compensating control, approver, expiry.

Step 6: Prove ongoing operation (control health checks)

Run recurring health checks and record outcomes:

• Sample validation (spot-check a subset of systems).
• Compare “in-scope inventory” vs “reporting inventory” to detect blind spots.
• Confirm exception list matches actual policy exclusions.
• Verify new images and new OS builds inherit the baseline automatically.

Daydream fits here as the control execution layer: you can store the control card, schedule health checks, attach evidence bundles, and track remediation items to validated closure without losing context between security engineering and GRC.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Build a minimum evidence bundle that you can reproduce on demand:

Design evidence (shows what should happen):

• Control card (owner, cadence, exceptions).
• Baseline matrix per OS/environment (versioned).
• Configuration standards or hardening docs that map to baseline items.

Implementation evidence (shows you deployed it):

• MDM/GPO/config management policy objects (screenshots or exported configs).
• Change records for baseline rollouts and updates.
• Golden image build documentation showing baseline baked in.

Operating evidence (shows it keeps working):

• Compliance reports (exported) showing current state across in-scope assets.
• Drift/remediation tickets with closure proof.
• Exception register with approvals, compensating controls, and expirations.
• Control health check results and follow-up actions.

Retention should follow your internal policy, but consistency matters more than duration. Auditors fail controls because evidence is scattered, not because it is missing in theory.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these questions from internal audit, customers, and assessors:

• “Which anti-exploitation features are required on Windows endpoints vs servers, and where is that documented?” (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
• “Show me the policy object that enforces exploit protections and a report proving endpoints comply.”
• “How do you know an admin didn’t disable these settings locally?”
• “How many exceptions exist, who approved them, and when do they expire?”
• “How do you ensure new laptops and new VM images inherit the baseline on day one?”
• “What’s your process when a business-critical app breaks under protections?”

Hangup to plan for: engineering teams may treat this as “EDR covers it.” Auditors usually want explicit configuration enforcement evidence for exploit mitigations, even if EDR is present.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1. Policy-only compliance. A statement in the security policy without configuration proof fails quickly. Fix: require system-generated compliance reports as the primary evidence.
2. No scope boundary. Teams argue about whether servers/dev are included. Fix: document in-scope asset classes and explicit exclusions.
3. Baseline is too detailed to enforce. A long list becomes shelfware. Fix: start with a small set of enforceable protections and expand after you have measurement.
4. Exceptions without expirations. Compatibility waivers linger. Fix: require expirations and revalidation in the exception workflow.
5. No drift story. Controls degrade after a few months. Fix: define drift detection and recurring health checks as part of the control design.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this safeguard, so this page does not cite specific regulator actions. Practically, the risk is straightforward: if exploit mitigations are off, a single memory corruption bug or scripting bypass has a higher chance of turning into code execution and lateral movement. During diligence, customers treat exploit protection maturity as a proxy for hardening discipline and operational control.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (foundation)

• Assign control owner and publish the control card.
• Define in-scope asset categories and exclusions.
• Draft the baseline matrix for your top platforms (start with endpoints and general-purpose servers).
• Identify the enforcement mechanism per platform (MDM/GPO/config tool) and document source of truth.

Deliverables: control card, baseline matrix, scope statement, initial exception template.

By 60 days (deploy + measure)

• Implement baseline policies in a pilot group for each platform.
• Stand up compliance reporting: exportable reports that show which assets comply.
• Implement exception workflow in your ticketing/GRC system; migrate any existing informal exceptions into the register.
• Start tracking drift as tickets with owners and due dates.

Deliverables: deployed policies, pilot results, compliance report exports, exception register.

By 90 days (operate like an exam-ready control)

• Expand deployment to full in-scope populations by waves.
• Run the first formal control health check; capture findings and remediation actions.
• Validate that golden images and onboarding flows inherit the baseline automatically.
• Review exceptions; close or renew with explicit approval and compensating controls.

Deliverables: full-coverage reporting, health check report, remediation log, updated baseline version history.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does safeguard 10.5 require buying an exploit prevention product?

No. The requirement is to enable anti-exploitation features; many are built into operating systems and can be enforced through standard configuration tooling (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8).

How do I prove compliance without showing every endpoint’s screenshot?

Use system-generated exports from MDM/GPO/config management that show settings and coverage, plus an inventory reconciliation that proves the reporting set matches in-scope assets.

What if a legacy application breaks when protections are enabled?

Use a formal exception with documented justification, compensating controls, and an expiration. Track the remediation plan to remove the exception, such as upgrading the app or isolating the workload.

Are developers’ workstations in scope?

If they access production data, deploy code, or hold credentials, they should be in scope under most enterprise scoping models. If you exclude them, document why and what compensating controls reduce the risk.

How should we handle unmanaged or BYOD endpoints?

Treat them as out of scope for technical enforcement unless you have a management channel. Apply compensating controls such as VDI, conditional access, or restricting access to sensitive systems until the device is managed.

What evidence do auditors ask for most often?

A clear baseline, proof of central enforcement, and current compliance reports. The next questions focus on exception governance and drift remediation history.