Skip to main content
Comply Defense
Category: Configuration & Endpoint Security

CIS Benchmark

Also known as: CIS Benchmarks, Center for Internet Security Benchmarks
Simply put

A CIS Benchmark is a set of recommended security settings for configuring a specific technology, such as an operating system, application, or network device, to reduce its exposure to cyber threats. These guides are published by the Center for Internet Security (CIS) and are developed through a consensus process involving contributors from government, business, and industry. They are intended to help organizations harden their systems against common attacks.

Formal definition

CIS Benchmarks are consensus-based, best-practice secure configuration guides maintained by the Center for Internet Security (CIS) for defined target technologies (for example, operating systems, software platforms, and network devices). Per CIS, they are described as the only consensus-based configuration guides both developed and accepted by government, business, and industry stakeholders. Conformance to a given benchmark can be assessed using tooling such as the CIS-CAT Benchmark Assessment Tool, which reports how closely a target system aligns with the applicable benchmark. As of the evidence available, this entry does not cover specific benchmark versions, control counts, profile levels, or mappings to other frameworks; practitioners should confirm the current benchmark and revision for their target platform against the authoritative CIS source, and note that adopting a CIS Benchmark is a configuration-hardening measure and is not by itself equivalent to satisfying any particular regulatory or authorization requirement.

Why it matters

Secure configuration is one of the most direct ways to reduce a system's exposure to common attacks, and CIS Benchmarks provide a widely referenced, consensus-based starting point for hardening operating systems, applications, and network devices. Because they are developed and accepted by contributors across government, business, and industry, they carry broad recognition and can give organizations a defensible baseline for configuration decisions rather than relying on ad hoc or vendor-default settings, which are often optimized for functionality over security.

For compliance-focused organizations, CIS Benchmarks are useful precisely because they translate general hardening intent into specific, technology-level settings that can be assessed and demonstrated. Microsoft and AWS both describe the benchmarks as internationally or globally recognized security standards for defending IT systems and data, which reflects their common use as a reference point in cloud and enterprise environments.

Adopting a CIS Benchmark, however, is a configuration-hardening measure and is not by itself equivalent to satisfying any particular regulatory or authorization requirement. Compliance officers should treat benchmark conformance as evidence that supports a broader control posture rather than as a substitute for it, and should confirm how any benchmark maps to the specific frameworks, baselines, or authorizations that govern their systems against current authoritative sources.

Who it's relevant to

System Administrators and Configuration Owners
Those responsible for building and maintaining operating systems, applications, and network devices can use CIS Benchmarks as a concrete, technology-specific reference for hardening systems against common attacks rather than relying on vendor defaults. They should verify the current benchmark and revision for each target platform against the authoritative CIS source.
Information System Security Managers and Compliance Officers
ISSMs and compliance staff can treat benchmark conformance as supporting evidence within a broader control posture, but should not equate adopting a CIS Benchmark with satisfying a specific regulatory or authorization requirement. Any relationship between a benchmark and a governing framework or baseline must be confirmed against current authoritative sources.
Auditors and Assessors
Assessors evaluating configuration hygiene can use conformance to an applicable benchmark, including reporting from tools such as the CIS-CAT Benchmark Assessment Tool, as an objective measure of how closely a target system aligns with recommended settings. Assessment of conformance should be distinguished from authorization decisions, which involve broader considerations.
Cloud and Enterprise Platform Teams
Teams operating in cloud and enterprise environments, where major providers reference CIS Benchmarks as recognized security configuration standards, can use them to establish consistent hardening baselines across systems. They should confirm which benchmark and revision apply to each service or platform in use.

Inside CIS Benchmark

Consensus-Developed Configuration Guidance
CIS Benchmarks are secure configuration recommendations for specific technologies (operating systems, cloud platforms, containers, network devices, applications, and databases) developed through a community consensus process led by the Center for Internet Security (CIS), a nonprofit organization. They are non-binding best-practice guidance rather than a federal regulation or control catalog.
Technology-Specific Scope
Each benchmark targets a particular product and version, providing settings tailored to that platform. Because they are versioned to track underlying technology releases, practitioners should confirm they are using the benchmark edition that matches their deployed software version.
Recommendation Structure
Individual recommendations generally include a rationale, the recommended configuration setting, audit or verification steps, and remediation guidance. This structure supports both assessing current state and correcting deviations.
Profile Levels
Benchmarks typically organize recommendations into profile levels (commonly described as a foundational baseline level and a more restrictive, defense-in-depth level). Practitioners should verify the specific profile definitions in the applicable benchmark, as scope and settings vary by technology and revision.
Relationship to Compliance Frameworks
CIS Benchmarks are hardening guidance and are distinct from control frameworks such as NIST SP 800-53, NIST SP 800-171, FISMA, FedRAMP, or CMMC. They can support the implementation of configuration-related controls but do not, by themselves, constitute compliance with those authorities.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about CIS Benchmark.

Does implementing CIS Benchmarks make a system compliant with NIST SP 800-53 or FedRAMP?
No. CIS Benchmarks are consensus-developed configuration guidelines maintained by the Center for Internet Security, an independent nonprofit, and they are not a federal control catalog or authorization framework. Applying a CIS Benchmark can support specific configuration-related control objectives, but it does not by itself demonstrate compliance with NIST SP 800-53, FISMA, or FedRAMP, each of which is issued or administered by different authorities (NIST and the FedRAMP PMO, respectively) and covers a far broader scope than device and software hardening. Organizations should map benchmark settings to the applicable control baseline and confirm coverage against the current authoritative text rather than assuming equivalence.
If a system passes a CIS Benchmark assessment, is it secure?
Not necessarily. Meeting a CIS Benchmark indicates that certain configuration settings align with a published hardening recommendation, but assessment against a benchmark is not the same as an overall security determination. Configuration hardening addresses one dimension of a system's posture and does not account for factors such as patch currency, architecture, monitoring, personnel, or threat-specific risk. Compliance with a benchmark should be treated as evidence supporting a control, not as a conclusion that the system is secure.
How do CIS Benchmarks relate to the DoD Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) we already use?
Both CIS Benchmarks and DISA STIGs are configuration hardening guidance, but they are issued by different bodies and serve different mandates. STIGs are published by the Defense Information Systems Agency and are generally applied to DoD systems under the RMF, while CIS Benchmarks are maintained by the Center for Internet Security and see broad use across civilian, commercial, and state, local, tribal, and territorial environments. Where both exist for the same technology, organizations typically follow the guidance required by their governing authority; DoD systems generally defer to the applicable STIG, and readers should confirm which baseline is contractually or policy-mandated for their environment.
What are CIS Benchmark profile levels, and which should we apply?
CIS Benchmarks are commonly organized into profile levels that reflect differing balances between security and operational impact, with higher-assurance profiles generally imposing more restrictive settings that may affect functionality. The appropriate profile depends on the system's role, its data sensitivity, and any overriding organizational or regulatory requirements. Selection should be documented and reconciled with the tailored control baseline for the system rather than chosen in isolation. Confirm the specific profile definitions against the current published benchmark for the applicable technology.
How should we handle CIS Benchmark settings that conflict with mission or operational requirements?
Benchmarks are configuration recommendations rather than binding mandates on their own, so settings that would break required functionality are typically addressed through a documented deviation or exception process. In most implementations this involves recording the justification, any compensating measures, and approval by the appropriate authority, and then reflecting the deviation in the system's configuration and risk documentation. Where the benchmark supports a formally required control, coordinate the exception with the assessment and authorization process so the residual risk is visible to the authorizing official.
Are CIS Benchmarks a one-time hardening step, or do they require ongoing maintenance?
They require ongoing maintenance. Benchmarks are revised as technologies and recommended settings evolve, and system configurations tend to drift over time through updates and administrative changes. Sustaining alignment generally involves periodic reassessment, configuration monitoring, and updating baselines when new benchmark revisions are published. This ongoing effort fits within continuous monitoring expectations, and organizations should track which benchmark version they have implemented and verify it against the current release.

Common misconceptions

Applying a CIS Benchmark makes a system compliant with NIST SP 800-53, FedRAMP, or CMMC.
CIS Benchmarks are non-binding hardening guidance maintained by CIS, not a federal control catalog or authorization requirement. They can help satisfy configuration-related controls, but compliance with frameworks such as NIST SP 800-53, NIST SP 800-171, FedRAMP, or CMMC must be assessed against those authorities' own requirements and any agency-specific tailoring.
Hardening to a CIS Benchmark means a system is secure.
Configuration hardening is one component of a security program, not equivalent to overall security or to an authorization decision. Meeting a benchmark does not address threats outside its scope, and the guidance is a point-in-time recommendation that must be maintained through ongoing monitoring and updated as new benchmark revisions are issued.
There is a single, static CIS Benchmark that applies broadly across systems.
Benchmarks are technology- and version-specific and are revised over time. The applicable recommendations depend on the exact product and version deployed, and organizations should verify they are using the current benchmark edition rather than assuming one fixed set of settings applies everywhere.

Best practices

Confirm that the benchmark edition you apply matches the exact technology and version deployed, and check for newer revisions before use.
Select the appropriate profile level based on your system's risk context, verifying the specific profile definitions in the applicable benchmark rather than assuming defaults.
Treat CIS Benchmarks as supporting evidence for configuration-related controls, and map recommendations to the specific controls in your governing framework (for example NIST SP 800-53, NIST SP 800-171, FedRAMP, or CMMC) rather than substituting them for those requirements.
Use the benchmark's audit and remediation steps to establish a documented baseline, and re-verify configurations through continuous monitoring rather than treating hardening as a one-time task.
Document and justify any deviations or tailoring from a benchmark recommendation so the rationale is available for assessors and authorizing officials.
Verify current requirements against the official CIS publications and the governing framework authorities, since both benchmark content and compliance obligations change over time.