CIS Benchmarks Explained: A Comprehensive Guide to Security Hardening Best Practices

CIS Benchmarks

CIS Benchmarks are a globally recognized set of security hardening guidelines created and maintained by the Center for Internet Security (CIS). They provide consensus‑driven, vendor‑agnostic best practices for securing operating systems, cloud platforms, applications, services, and network devices.

They are developed through a community process involving:

• Security practitioners
• Government experts
• Industry specialists
• Tool vendors
• Auditors and compliance professionals

CIS Benchmarks are widely used across IT, security, compliance, and DevOps teams to reduce attack surface, support regulatory frameworks, and achieve baseline system security.

What CIS Benchmarks Include

Each CIS Benchmark provides:

1. Prescriptive Hardening Recommendations

These include step‑by‑step guidance, such as:

• OS configuration settings
• File permissions
• Logging requirements
• Network stack restrictions
• Authentication and authorization controls
• Service disablement recommendations

Example categories for an OS benchmark:

• Account and password policies
• Bootloader protections
• Kernel/hardening parameters
• Firewall configuration
• Logging and auditing standards

2. Scored vs. Unscored Recommendations

Scored controls:

• Affect the benchmark score
• Intended for automation and compliance evaluation
• Represent meaningful, measurable improvements to security posture

Unscored controls: 

• Good practices, but
• May break functionality or require environment‑specific decisions
• Provided for guidance but not counted toward compliance

Example:

• “Disable unused file systems” → Scored
• “Configure environment-specific banners” → Unscored

3. Levels of Stringency (Level 1 and Level 2)

Level 1

• Minimally invasive
• Strong security baseline
• Little to no impact on usability
• Suitable for most organizations

Level 2

• Stricter, often more disruptive
• Intended for environments requiring higher assurance
• May affect usability or break services
• Common in highly regulated or classified environments

This two‑tier system allows organizations to balance security and operational practicality.

Types of CIS Benchmarks

CIS provides benchmarks for a wide range of technologies:

Operating Systems

• Windows (various versions)
• Linux distros (Ubuntu, RHEL, CentOS, Amazon Linux, Debian, SUSE)
• macOS
• Solaris

Cloud Platforms

• AWS
• Azure
• Google Cloud Platform (GCP)
• Kubernetes (CIS Kubernetes Benchmark)
• Docker

Applications & Middleware

• Apache
• NGINX
• SQL Server
• Oracle DB
• PostgreSQL

Network Devices

• Cisco IOS
• Palo Alto NGFW
• Juniper
• F5 devices

Purpose of CIS Benchmarks

1. Reduce Attack Surface

By disabling unused services, hardening configurations, and enforcing least privilege.

2. Standardize Security

Provides a consistent configuration baseline across distributed environments.

3. Support Compliance Requirements

Many frameworks reference CIS Benchmarks directly or indirectly:

• SOC 2
• PCI DSS
• FedRAMP
• NIST 800‑53 / 800‑171
• HIPAA
• ISO 27001
• CMMC

CIS Benchmarks are often used as a “proof of hardening” or evidence for control implementation.

4. Enable Automated Hardening

Benchmarks include:

• YAML profiles
• Automated tooling references
• Mappings to CIS‑CAT (CIS Configuration Assessment Tool)
• Settings compatible with Ansible, Puppet, Chef, Terraform, and cloud APIs

How Organizations Use CIS Benchmarks

1. Baseline Creation

Teams align new system builds with CIS Benchmark Level 1 or Level 2 profiles.

2. Continuous Compliance

Integrating CIS checks into:

• CI/CD pipelines
• EDR/XDR policies
• Hardening scripts
• Cloud security posture management (CSPM) tools

3. Audit Preparation

System owners provide CIS‑CAT reports or CSPM findings to auditors as evidence of hardened configurations.

4. Security Operations

SOC analysts use CIS-hardening as a foundational element of endpoint protection and attack‑surface reduction.

CIS Tools That Support the Benchmarks

CIS‑CAT (Configuration Assessment Tool)

• Scans systems against CIS Benchmarks
• Generates compliance scores
• Produces audit‑ready reports

CIS Hardened Images

Pre‑hardened cloud VM images available on marketplaces (AWS, Azure, GCP).

CIS WorkBench

A platform where practitioners collaborate and download benchmark resources.

Why CIS Benchmarks Matter for Security Teams

They help prevent entire classes of attacks:

• Lateral movement reduction
• Privilege escalation hardening
• Remote exploitation barriers
• Credential theft mitigation
• Script execution and service misuse protections

They align business and technical security goals:

• Measurable
• Auditable
• Repeatable
• Automatable

They provide a common language across IT and security:

• System owners
• Engineers
• Compliance teams
• Auditors

Summary

CIS Benchmarks are comprehensive, consensus‑driven best practices for securing systems, applications, and cloud infrastructure. They include:

• Scored and unscored controls
• Level 1 and Level 2 profiles
• Hardening guidance for a massive range of technologies
• Tools for assessment and automation

They play a crucial role in baseline security, compliance, and proactive threat reduction for organizations of all sizes.

Reverse Shells Explained: How They Work and How Defenders Detect and Mitigate Them

 

Reverse Shell

A reverse shell is a remote, interactive command-line session established by an attacker, in which the compromised host initiates an outbound connection to the attacker’s system. Unlike a traditional “bind shell,” which listens for inbound connections (often blocked by firewalls), a reverse shell rides an egress connection (commonly allowed) to establish control.

Typical pattern (at a high level):

1. The attacker sets up a system to receive a connection.

2. The compromised host initiates a connection to that system over an allowed protocol/port (often traffic that appears normal, e.g., HTTPS or another outbound‑permitted channel).

3. Once connected, the attacker gets an interactive shell to run commands remotely.

Why reverse shells are effective

• Firewall/NAT traversal: Outbound traffic is usually more permissive than inbound, so egress connections have a higher chance of succeeding.
• Blending in: Connections may be tunneled over common ports or protocols and can be made to resemble legitimate traffic patterns.
• Post‑exploitation utility: After an initial foothold (phishing, web exploit, misconfig), a reverse shell provides a flexible way to explore, exfiltrate, and move laterally.

Common stages (defender’s mental model)

• Initial foothold: Phishing payload, web app injection, malicious macro, vulnerable service.
• Stager or loader: A small component prepares the environment, resolves the attacker’s address, and opens an outbound connection.
• Session establishment: The target system creates a TCP/UDP/TLS/WebSocket connection to the attacker’s listener.
• Interactive control: The attacker receives an interactive prompt; keystrokes/commands are relayed over that channel.
• Persistence & defense evasion (optional): Modifying autoruns, services, scheduled tasks, or abusing living‑off‑the‑land binaries (LOLBins) to survive reboots and blend in.

Indicators of a reverse shell (IOCs/IOAs)

• Unusual outbound connections from servers that usually don’t initiate egress (e.g., DB servers talking to the internet).
• Beaconing patterns: Periodic, small connections to rare external IPs/domains.
• Shell‑like process trees: Legitimate apps spawning command interpreters (e.g., a web server spawning a shell or scripting engine).
• Encoded or obfuscated command lines passed to interpreters (PowerShell, Python, bash, etc.).
• Unexpected parent/child relationships: Office apps, RMM agents, or web services launching interpreters or network tools.
• Newly created or modified autoruns (services, scheduled tasks, launch agents).
• TLS with self‑signed or unusual certs to non‑standard destinations.

Detection strategies (practical but non‑harmful)

1. Network analytics

• Alert on egress from “should‑not‑talk‑to‑internet” assets.
• Model baselines and detect rare external destinations or new SNI/JA3/ALPN fingerprints.
• Look for long‑lived or interactive connections to unknown IPs.

2. Endpoint telemetry (EDR/XDR)

• Rules for suspicious parent→child (web server → shell; Office app → scripting engine).
• Command‑line analytics: base64 blobs, download‑and‑execute chains, or suspicious flags.
• Pipe/PTY/PTY‑like artifacts and pseudo‑terminal allocation indicators on *nix.
• Script block logging and module logging on Windows; shell history monitoring on *nix.

3. Deception & honeypots

• Plant canary accounts/paths; alert on access followed by outbound connections.

4. Threat intel & DNS

• Block/alert on known C2 domains and dynamic DNS patterns.
• Recursive DNS logs: look for bursty or algorithmic query patterns (DGAs).

Mitigation & hardening

• Egress control & segmentation
• Default‑deny outbound from servers; only allow necessary destinations/ports.
• Use application‑aware firewalls or proxy controls to constrain outbound protocols.
• Micro‑segment high‑value systems; isolate management planes.
• Least privilege
• Remove local admin where not needed; enforce privileged access management (PAM).
• Credential hygiene: rotate secrets, disable unused accounts, MFA for remote access.
• System hygiene
• Patch internet‑facing apps and scripting runtimes.
• Disable or restrict LOLBins and scripting engines where feasible (e.g., constrained language modes, execution policies, or application control).
• Application allow‑listing (Windows AppLocker/WDAC; *nix equivalents).
• Monitoring & response
• Script block logging, PowerShell transcription, Sysmon (Windows); Auditd/OSQuery/eBPF on *nix.
• Block unsigned outbound TLS where possible; pin certs to known backends.
• Rapid containment playbooks: kill suspicious processes, block egress, isolate host, snapshot forensics, rotate creds.

Safe lab validation (defensive focus)

If your goal is to test detections, build a lab and:

• Use a controlled C2 simulator or red‑team emulation framework in a private network range.
• Ensure written authorization and isolate from production.
• Measure whether your EDR/XDR flags:
• Weird parent→child relationships
• Encoded command lines
• New outbound destinations
• Persistence attempts

SOC 2 Type 1 vs. Type 2 Explained: Differences, Use Cases, and Why It Matters

 SOC 2 Type 1 vs. Type 2 — Explanation

SOC 2 (Service Organization Control 2) is an audit framework developed by the AICPA to evaluate how well a service organization protects customer data based on the Trust Services Criteria:

• Security (required)
• Availability
• Processing Integrity
• Confidentiality
• Privacy

SOC 2 reports come in two forms: Type 1 and Type 2, each serving different purposes and offering different levels of assurance.

SOC 2 Type 1 — What It Is

Definition

A SOC 2 Type 1 report evaluates the design of an organization’s security controls at a single point in time.

It answers the question:

“Are the controls designed properly as of today?”

 What It Evaluates

• Policies, configurations, and procedures exist and are designed correctly to meet the Trust Services Criteria.
• No long-term testing is performed, only design suitability.

Timing

• Point‑in‑time snapshot
• Typically completed in weeks, much faster than Type 2

Use Cases

• Early‑stage companies needing fast compliance
• Organizations with newly implemented controls
• Businesses needing proof of security to close deals quickly

Limitations

• Does not prove that controls actually operate consistently over time
• Many enterprise customers reject Type 1 reports

SOC 2 Type 2 — What It Is

Definition

A SOC 2 Type 2 report evaluates both:

• Design of controls
• Operating effectiveness of those controls over a period of 3–12 months

It answers:

“Do the controls work reliably over time?”

What It Evaluates

• Auditor tests real evidence: logs, tickets, change records, access reviews
• Demonstrates continuous control operation

Timing

• Review period: 3–12 months
• Total audit timeline: 6–20 months

Use Cases

• Required by enterprise customers
• Companies in regulated industries
• SaaS vendors that store sensitive customer data

Strengths

• Provides the highest level of assurance
• Demonstrates operational maturity
• Widely required in vendor security assessments (RFPs)

Key Differences: SOC 2 Type 1 vs. Type 2

Which One Should an Organization Choose?

Choose Type 1 if:

• You need something fast to unblock deals
• Your controls were recently implemented
• You’re validating that your control design is correct before deeper auditing

Choose Type 2 if:

• You sell to mid‑market or enterprise customers
• You operate in regulated industries (finance, health, government)
• You want long‑term credibility with vendors and partners

According to SOC2auditors.org, 98% of Fortune 500 companies require a Type 2 report, making it the de facto standard for serious B2B SaaS.

Summary

Both are valuable, but Type 2 is the industry standard for trust and vendor due diligence.

CVSS v4.0 Explained: What’s New, Why It Matters, and How It’s Used

 CVSS v4.0 Explained in Detail

What is CVSS v4.0?

CVSS v4.0 (released November 1, 2023) is the latest version of the Common Vulnerability Scoring System, an open standard used globally to communicate the severity of software, hardware, and firmware vulnerabilities.

It provides a numerical severity score from 0 to 10 and a corresponding vector string that explains how the score was calculated.

CVSS v4.0 introduces changes to improve granularity, accuracy, flexibility, and real‑world relevance in vulnerability scoring.

CVSS v4.0 Metric Groups

CVSS v4.0 consists of four metric groups:

Base, Threat, Environmental, and Supplemental.

1. Base Metrics

These are the intrinsic characteristics of a vulnerability, attributes that do not change across environments or over time.

They form the foundation of the CVSS score.

Key updates in CVSS v4.0 Base metrics include:

• Attack Requirements (AT): New metric describing conditions needed for exploitation.
• User Interaction (UI) was expanded to None, Passive, and Active, providing finer-grained control.
• Impact metrics revamped:

• Vulnerable System impacts (VC, VI, VA)
• Subsequent System impacts (SC, SI, SA)
• These replace “Scope” from CVSS v3.1.

2. Threat Metrics

These describe real‑world exploitation conditions that can change over time, such as exploit availability and active attacks.

They now replace the Temporal metrics in CVSS v3.1. 

They allow organizations to calculate a more realistic severity based on:

• in‑the‑wild attacks
• existence of exploit code
• technical maturity of exploits

3. Environmental Metrics

These represent the unique characteristics of the environment where a vulnerability exists.

They help organizations tailor scores to their infrastructure. 

Examples include:

• system value
• controls in place
• business impact
• compensating security mechanisms

4. Supplemental Metrics (New)

A brand‑new group providing additional context without modifying the numeric score.

This includes information such as safety‑related impacts or automation‑relevant data. [first.org]

These metrics are useful for:

• medical device cybersecurity (e.g., FDA recognition) 
• industrial systems
• compliance reporting
• fine‑grained prioritization

Qualitative Severity Ratings (v4.0)

According to NVD, CVSS v4.0 uses:

• Low: 0.1–3.9
• Medium: 4.0–6.9
• High: 7.0–8.9
• Critical: 9.0–10.0

Key Improvements Over CVSS v3.1

1. Better Definition of User Interaction

Passive vs. Active user interaction helps distinguish:

• Passive → user only needs to be present
• Active → user must perform an action

2. Attack Requirements (AT) Metric

Separates “conditions needed to exploit” from “exploit complexity,” making scoring more precise.

 3. Removal/Replacement of Scope

CVSS v3.1’s Scope was often misunderstood.

CVSS v4.0 uses separate impact metrics for “Vulnerable System” and “Subsequent Systems.”

4. New Supplemental Metrics

These allow non‑score‑affecting context, such as safety, automation, and exploit vectorization.

 5. Better Alignment with Real‑World Exploitation

The new Threat metrics track real‑world activity more cleanly than v3’s Temporal metrics.

Why CVSS v4.0 Matters

More Accurate Severity Assessments

More precise metrics → fewer inflated or misleading scores.

Improved Prioritization

Organizations can incorporate environment- and threat‑specific data to improve remediation decisions.

Better Reporting and Compliance

Used by NVD, FIRST, cybersecurity vendors, and regulators such as the FDA.

Enhanced Granularity for Critical Infrastructure

New Supplemental metrics help sectors like healthcare, ICS/OT, and cloud services add context without modifying the core score.

How CVSS v4.0 Is Used Today

NVD (National Vulnerability Database) supports CVSS v4.0 Base scores.

(As of 2024–2025, Threat and Environmental metrics must be user‑calculated.)

Cybersecurity vendors (Qualys, Checkmarx, etc.) are adopting v4.

FDA Recognized Standard for medical device cybersecurity.

Summary

CVSS v4.0 is the most refined and flexible version of the Common Vulnerability Scoring System to date. Its four metric groups, Base, Threat, Environmental, and Supplemental, offer more nuanced scoring, real‑world relevance, and improved context compared to previous versions.

Key improvements include:

• New Attack Requirements metric
• Improved User Interaction classification
• Replacement of Scope with clearer system impact metrics
• Introduction of Supplemental Metrics
• Better alignment with threat intelligence

CVSS v4.0 provides organizations with more accurate, adaptable, and actionable vulnerability severity assessments.

Directory Brute Force Attacks Explained: How Hidden Web Paths Are Discovered

Directory Brute Force Attack?

A directory brute-force attack (also called directory enumeration, path brute-forcing, or content discovery) is a technique used in cybersecurity to identify hidden or unlinked directories and files on a web server.

These locations may not appear anywhere on the public website, but they still exist on the server, sometimes containing:

• Admin portals
• Backups
• Development endpoints
• Configuration files
• Old versions of the site
• Sensitive documents

Security testers attempt to identify these areas to detect potential misconfigurations, while attackers seek them to gain unauthorized access.

Why Directories Can Be Hidden But Accessible

Web servers store files in a folder structure, such as:

• /admin
• /backups
• /private
• /.git
• /api/v1/

Even if a site doesn’t link to these directories publicly:

• They may still be reachable if the server doesn’t block them.
• They may leak through predictable naming patterns.
• Developers sometimes forget to remove old or test folders.

Since URLs can be guessed (e.g., example.com/admin), attackers test huge numbers of possible paths to find what the server reveals.

How Directory Brute Forcing Works (High-Level Technical View)

Again, this is conceptual, not instructional.

1. A list of common directory/file names exists in the attacker’s tool or process

• These lists contain thousands of guesses based on:
• Common naming conventions (e.g., /admin, /login)
• Framework defaults (e.g., /wp-admin for WordPress)
• Backup file names (backup.zip, db_old.sql)
• Hidden directories (/.git/, /test/, /old/)

2. Each potential path is tested against the target website

The web server responds differently depending on whether the path exists:

3. Responses are analyzed

A tester looks for:

• Valid locations that the site didn’t intend to expose
• Forbidden directories that confirm a sensitive area exists
• Patterns of interest, such as staging environments

4. Discovered content may reveal vulnerabilities

Once a hidden directory is found, it could expose:

• Admin login pages
• Backup archives containing sensitive data
• Source code repositories
• Misconfigurations
• Unpatched services

Security teams then fix these issues to harden the system.

Why It Matters for Security

For defenders:

• Directory brute force testing is essential in penetration testing and web application security assessments.
• It helps identify accidental exposures before attackers find them.
• It uncovers outdated or forgotten content (“shadow IT”).

For attackers:

• They may use directory discovery to:
• Find an entry point for intrusion
• Access sensitive information
• Identify vulnerable components
• Map the structure of a website for further attacks

Common Preventive Measures

Organizations can mitigate risks by:

• Disabling directory listing on the server
• Restricting access using authentication or IP allowlists
• Using non-predictable naming for sensitive paths
• Implementing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs)
• Monitoring for unusual patterns of requests
• Removing old or unused directories

The goal is to make it harder (or impossible) for an attacker to guess sensitive paths.

Summary

A directory brute force attack is a method of systematically guessing URL paths to find hidden directories or files on a web server. It doesn’t rely on vulnerabilities, just on predictable naming patterns or forgotten resources. While it's a legitimate security testing technique, attackers also use it to uncover sensitive content.

A Comprehensive Guide to Simultaneous Authentication of Equals (SAE) in WPA3

 Simultaneous Authentication of Equals (SAE) 

SAE is a password‑authenticated key exchange (PAKE) protocol used in WPA3‑Personal Wi‑Fi networks.

It replaces the older PSK (Pre‑Shared Key) approach used in WPA2.

SAE is based on the Dragonfly key exchange protocol and provides a far more secure method for establishing encryption keys on wireless networks.

1. Why SAE Exists

Under WPA2-PSK, a weak password made the network vulnerable to:

• Offline dictionary attacks
• Attackers could capture the 4‑way handshake and brute‑force it offline without interacting with the network.
• No forward secrecy
• If the PSK was discovered later, past traffic could be decrypted.

SAE solves these problems.

2. What SAE Does

SAE provides:

• Mutual authentication
• Both the client and the access point demonstrate knowledge of the password without revealing it.
• Forward Secrecy
• The encryption keys change for each session.
• If the password leaks later, old traffic cannot be decrypted.
• Protection from Offline Cracking
• An attacker cannot capture a handshake and brute‑force it later.
• They must perform live, interactive attempts—slowing attacks drastically.
• Resistance to Passive Attacks
• Simply listening to the traffic gives no useful information about the password.

3. How SAE Works (Step-by-Step)

SAE is a two‑phase handshake:

Phase 1 – Commit Exchange

Both sides (client and AP):

1. Convert the shared Wi‑Fi password into a Password Element (PWE).

• PWE is derived from the password and the two MAC addresses.
• Ensures the handshake is unique for each client–AP pair.

2. Generate a random number (their private “secret”).

3. Compute:

• A commit scalar
• A commit element

4. Exchange these values openly over the air.

Important:

Even though the commit values are public, they cannot be used to derive the password.

Phase 2 – Confirm Exchange

Both sides:

1. Compute the shared secret key using:

• Their own private random number
• The other party’s commit element

2. Derive a session key (PMK).

3. Exchange confirm messages proving they derived the same key.

If confirm messages match → authentication succeeds.

4. Key Properties of SAE

• Offline Attack Resistance
• An attacker capturing SAE handshakes gets no password-derivable data.
• Forward Secrecy
• Keys change for every session.
• Anti-Clogging
• To prevent DoS attacks (spamming commit messages), the AP can require "anti-clogging tokens" before continuing.
• Mutual Authentication
• Both sides prove knowledge of the password.

5. How SAE Differs from WPA2‑PSK

6. Where SAE Is Used

SAE is the mandatory authentication method for:

• WPA3-Personal
• Wi-Fi Enhanced Open (for upgrade paths)
• Enterprise environments that enable "Transition Mode"

7. Common Terms Related to SAE

• Dragonfly Key Exchange — underlying cryptographic design.
• Password Element (PWE) — ECC point representing the password.
• Commit & Confirm messages — two-step handshake communication.
• PMK (Pairwise Master Key) — key derived from SAE for the 4‑way handshake.

8. Why SAE Is Considered Secure

Because SAE:

• Never transmits information usable to guess the password
• Requires an attacker to interact for every guess
• Uses elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman
• Uses strong hashing of the PWE
• Provides fresh keys per session

This combination makes it substantially more secure than WPA2-PSK.

Summary

SAE (Simultaneous Authentication of Equals) is the WPA3 authentication method designed to prevent:

• Offline dictionary attacks
• Decryption of old traffic
• Reuse of stale session keys
• Weaknesses inherent to WPA2-PSK

It accomplishes this through a secure, mutual, password-authenticated key exchange that provides forward secrecy and robust resistance to brute-force attacks.

SY0-701 Exam prep questions

 YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO TAKE THIS QUIZ.