Safeguard 10.7: Use Behavior-Based Anti-Malware Software

To meet the safeguard 10.7: use behavior-based anti-malware software requirement, you must deploy and operate anti-malware controls that detect suspicious behavior (not only known signatures) across in-scope endpoints and servers, then prove they are consistently installed, enabled, updated, monitored, and responded to. Your fastest path is standardizing one EDR/next-gen AV configuration, enforcing it via device management, and capturing recurring evidence. ¹

Key takeaways:

• Behavior-based detection must be deployed broadly, configured consistently, and monitored, not just purchased.
• The control fails in audits when you cannot prove coverage, enforcement, alert handling, and exception management.
• Treat evidence collection as part of operations: automate reports, screenshots, and ticket exports on a set cadence.

CIS Controls v8 Safeguard 10.7 focuses on an outcome: your organization should be able to detect and stop malware based on behavior patterns, not only on known file signatures. That distinction matters operationally because modern attacks commonly use living-off-the-land techniques, polymorphic malware, and script-based payloads that evade basic signature scanning. Safeguard 10.7 pushes you toward EDR or “next-gen AV” capabilities that watch process behavior, command lines, memory activity, and suspicious child-process chains.

For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the win condition is simple to state and often hard to demonstrate: prove that behavior-based anti-malware is deployed on all required systems, is tamper-resistant, is receiving updates, is generating alerts to the right queue, and that the business triages and resolves those alerts with evidence. CIS is a framework, not a regulator, so your execution needs to be audit-ready across customer/security reviews and mapped to your internal control library. Use this page as a requirement-level implementation guide you can hand to endpoint engineering and your SOC, then collect the artifacts you’ll need later. ¹

Regulatory text

Excerpt (framework expectation): “CIS Controls v8 safeguard 10.7 implementation expectation (Use Behavior-Based Anti-Malware Software).” ¹

What the operator must do (plain-English):

• Deploy anti-malware that detects malicious activity using behavioral signals, not only signature matches.
• Ensure it runs on in-scope assets (endpoints and servers where malware risk exists), remains enabled, and cannot be casually disabled.
• Monitor detections and take action (contain, remediate, investigate) with a trackable workflow.
• Keep proof of operation: coverage, configuration, alert handling, and exceptions. ¹

Plain-English interpretation of the requirement

Safeguard 10.7 expects your anti-malware program to catch “unknown” or modified threats by looking for suspicious behavior such as abnormal process injection, credential dumping patterns, ransomware-like file operations, or unusual script execution. Practically, this usually means an EDR agent or a next-gen AV product with behavior analytics enabled. Signature-only AV that passively scans files is rarely enough to meet the spirit of the safeguard.

From a GRC lens, interpret “use” as “operate as a control.” That includes: defined scope, standard configuration, enforced deployment, monitoring, incident handling, and evidence.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

Applies to:

• Enterprises and technology organizations implementing CIS Controls v8 as a security baseline. ¹

Operationally, you should treat these as in-scope unless you document an exception:

• Corporate laptops/desktops (managed and BYOD if allowed onto corporate resources).
• Windows/macOS endpoints used by admins and developers.
• Production and non-production servers, especially internet-exposed and identity-related systems.
• VDI and persistent virtual workstations.
• High-risk “special purpose” endpoints (jump boxes, bastions, kiosks), even if locked down.

Common scoping edge cases you must decide explicitly:

• Linux servers: many EDR tools support Linux, but teams omit it due to operational friction.
• Containers: you may need runtime detection or node-level EDR; decide which layer satisfies your intent.
• OT/ICS or medical devices: behavior-based agents may be unsafe; your exception process must cover compensating controls.

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

1) Define control scope and ownership

• Name the authoritative asset sources (CMDB, MDM, endpoint management, cloud inventory).
• Define “covered asset” categories (workstations, servers, VDI, privileged endpoints).
• Assign operational owners: Endpoint Engineering for deployment, SOC for monitoring, IT/SecOps for remediation, GRC for evidence.

Deliverable: Control statement + scope definition mapped to Safeguard 10.7. ¹

2) Select the behavior-based anti-malware capability you will standardize

Minimum characteristics to require in your internal standard:

• Behavioral detections enabled (not “available”).
• Central management console with audit logs.
• Tamper protection and local uninstall restrictions.
• Alert forwarding/integration to SIEM or case management.

If you already own a product, focus on closing configuration and coverage gaps before switching tools. Tool churn is a common reason evidence becomes inconsistent.

3) Create a hardened standard configuration (gold policy)

Create one baseline policy per platform (Windows, macOS, Linux) and keep variance minimal:

• Real-time protection enabled.
• Behavior monitoring enabled.
• Cloud-delivered protection/reputation checks enabled (if available and approved).
• Automatic definition/engine updates enabled.
• Tamper protection enabled.
• Exclusions tightly governed (path, process, hash exclusions create blind spots).

Control design test: a standard user should not be able to disable protection without admin approval, and any change should be logged.

4) Enforce deployment and prevent drift

Use the management plane you already trust:

• MDM (Intune/Jamf), endpoint management (SCCM), or device management scripts to install and keep the agent present.
• Policy enforcement from the anti-malware console.
• Conditional access or NAC rules to block unmanaged endpoints from sensitive systems.

Operational target: continuous coverage is more important than “point-in-time rollout.” Auditors will ask what happens when a device is reimaged, replaced, or off-network.

5) Operationalize monitoring and response

Behavior-based controls create alerts. Untriaged alerts equal unoperated control.

• Define alert routing: which severities create tickets, pages, or dashboards.
• Define response playbooks (contain host, isolate network, kill process, collect triage package).
• Define SLAs as internal expectations (you set them), then measure adherence.
• Train IT helpdesk on “agent disabled” and “device isolated” procedures to avoid workarounds.

6) Manage exclusions and exceptions with discipline

Set up two workflows:

• Exclusion request workflow: requester, business justification, scope (exact path/process), duration, approver, and compensating controls.
• Exception workflow (cannot install agent): device class, risk rationale, alternative controls (application allowlisting, restricted network zones), and review cadence.

This is where most audit findings live: uncontrolled exclusions become undocumented risk acceptance.

7) Build recurring evidence capture (make it boring)

Turn evidence collection into a scheduled task:

• Monthly export of coverage reports.
• Monthly export of “agent health” (last check-in, outdated engine).
• Sample of alerts with linked tickets showing triage and closure.
• Quarterly review of exceptions/exclusions with approvals.

If you use Daydream for GRC operations, map Safeguard 10.7 to a single control record with an evidence checklist and recurring tasks so the same artifacts show up every cycle without manual chasing.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep evidence in a way an auditor can replay the story: scope → deployment → enforcement → monitoring → response.

Core artifacts (most requested):

• Written control narrative for Safeguard 10.7 mapped to your endpoint/EDR standard. ¹
• Asset scope list or inventory export (in-scope endpoints/servers).
• EDR/anti-malware console reports showing:
  • Device coverage (installed + active)
  • Policy assignment and enforcement
  • Update/definition status
  • Tamper protection settings (where applicable)
• Change records for policy changes (who changed what, when, why).
• Alert samples with corresponding incident/ticket records showing triage, containment/remediation, and closure notes.
• Exclusions and exceptions register with approvals and review outcomes.

Evidence quality tips:

• Prefer system-generated exports over screenshots. Use screenshots only for settings that cannot be exported.
• Timebox samples: show recent months, and keep an archive.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

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

1. Coverage: “Show me the list of all endpoints and servers and prove the agent is installed and healthy on each.”
2. Behavior-based feature: “Where do you show that behavioral detection is enabled, not only signature scanning?”
3. Tamper resistance: “Can users disable it? Who can create exclusions? Is that logged?”
4. Alert handling: “Show tickets for detections. How do you know alerts are reviewed and closed appropriately?”
5. Exceptions: “Which systems do not have the agent and what compensating controls exist?”

Hangup pattern: teams can demonstrate the tool exists, but not that it is consistently enforced across the fleet.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake	Why it fails	Avoid it by
Buying EDR but leaving behavior rules in “detect-only” forever	Creates audit doubt and real exposure	Define which detections must be “prevent/block” vs “detect,” then phase safely
Exclusions granted informally (chat/email)	Creates blind spots you cannot defend	Centralize requests, approvals, and expiration dates in a register
No Linux/server coverage	Leaves high-value assets unmonitored	Make server coverage a tracked rollout with exception sign-off
Alerts routed to email only	No evidence of triage and closure	Require tickets/cases for defined severities and retain case history
“One-off” evidence scrambling	Rework every audit cycle	Schedule recurring exports and store them under the control record (Daydream helps standardize this)

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement sources were provided for this safeguard in the supplied catalog, so you should treat enforcement risk as indirect: behavior-based anti-malware is commonly evaluated during incident investigations, cyber insurance underwriting, and customer security reviews. Operationally, the biggest risk is control failure due to coverage gaps or an inability to show monitoring and response.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (stabilize and define)

• Confirm in-scope asset categories and authoritative inventory sources.
• Pick the standard product(s) and document the minimum configuration required for “behavior-based” operation.
• Turn on (or validate) centralized logging and alert forwarding to SIEM/ticketing.
• Draft the exclusions and exceptions workflow and assign approvers.

By 60 days (enforce and prove)

• Roll out to the highest-risk endpoint populations first: admins, developers, and security staff.
• Roll out to priority server tiers: identity systems, remote access, internet-facing workloads.
• Implement tamper protection and restrict local uninstall.
• Start recurring evidence capture: coverage report, policy report, health report, and alert-to-ticket samples.

By 90 days (operational maturity)

• Close remaining coverage gaps or document approved exceptions with compensating controls.
• Run a tabletop for an EDR detection scenario and confirm the ticket trail and evidence retention.
• Review exclusions for overbreadth and add expirations where missing.
• Finalize your control narrative and evidence checklist so the next audit cycle is routine.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Microsoft Defender for Endpoint count as behavior-based anti-malware?

It can, if you enable and operate the behavioral/EDR capabilities and can prove policy enforcement, monitoring, and response. Auditors will still expect coverage reports, configuration evidence, and alert handling records. ¹

We have signature-based AV already. What changes for Safeguard 10.7?

You must add or enable behavior-based detection features and show they are active across in-scope assets. Your evidence needs to prove operational monitoring and response, not just installation. ¹

How do we handle systems where an EDR agent can’t be installed?

Put them in a formal exception register with compensating controls (segmentation, allowlisting, restricted admin access) and a documented review. Auditors care less about perfection than about governed risk decisions with proof.

What is the minimum evidence set that usually satisfies an assessor?

A current coverage/health report, a policy/configuration export showing behavior monitoring enabled, and a small set of detection alerts tied to tickets with closure notes. Add your exceptions/exclusions register to prevent follow-up findings.

Can we meet the requirement if the tool is installed but alerts aren’t reviewed?

You’ll struggle to defend that the control is operating. Build a triage workflow that generates tickets/cases and retain those records as proof of monitoring and response.

How do we prevent endpoint teams from creating overly broad exclusions?

Require security approval, enforce time-bound exclusions, and review the exclusion list on a regular cadence. Track every exclusion as a change record so you can explain it during audits.

Footnotes

1. CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8