IAC-15: Password-Based Authentication
Mechanisms exist to enforce complexity, length and lifespan considerations to ensure strong criteria for password-based authentication.
Renumbered: Formerly IAC-10.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, IAC-15 was Account Management. That control is now IAC-08.
Control Question: Does the organization enforce complexity, length and lifespan considerations to ensure strong criteria for password-based authentication?
General (44)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC6.6-POF2 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 | 5.2 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 | 5.2 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 | 5.2 |
| CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 | 5.2 |
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | IAM-13 IAM-14 IAM-15 |
| CSA IoT SCF 2 | IAM-18 IAM-19 IAM-21 |
| GovRAMP | IA-05(01) |
| GovRAMP Core | IA-05(01) |
| GovRAMP Low | IA-05(01) |
| GovRAMP Low+ | IA-05(01) |
| GovRAMP Moderate | IA-05(01) |
| GovRAMP High | IA-05(01) |
| IEC 62443-2-1 2024 | USER 1.11 |
| IEC 62443-3-3 2013 | SR 1.7 SR 1.7 RE 1 SR 1.7 RE 2 |
| IEC 62443-4-2 2019 | CR 1.5(c) CR 1.7 CR 1.7(1) CR 1.7(2) |
| ISO 27002 2022 | 5.17 |
| ISO 27017 2015 | 9.2.4 9.4.3 |
| ISO 27018 2025 | 5.17 |
| MPA Content Security Program 5.3.1 | TS-1.6 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | IA-5(1) |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | IA-05(01) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | IA-05(01) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | IA-05(01) |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | IA-05(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | IA-05(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | IA-05(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | IA-05(01) |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | IA-05(01) |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | 3.5.7 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.05.07.e 03.05.07.f 03.05.12.b 03.05.12.d 03.05.12.e |
| NIST 800-171A (source) | 3.5.7[a] 3.5.7[b] 3.5.7[c] 3.5.7[d] |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.05.07.ODP[02] A.03.05.07.e A.03.05.07.f A.03.05.12.b A.03.05.12.d A.03.05.12.e |
| NIST 800-172 R3 | 03.05.02E |
| NIST 800-172A R3 | A.03.05.02E.ODP[02] |
| OWASP Top 10 2025 | A07:2025 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) | 8.3 8.3.1 8.3.3 8.3.5 8.3.6 8.3.7 8.3.9 8.3.10.1 8.6.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A (source) | 8.3.1 8.3.5 8.3.6 8.3.7 8.3.9 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) | 8.3.1 8.3.3 8.3.5 8.3.6 8.3.7 8.3.9 8.6.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) | 8.3.1 8.3.3 8.3.5 8.3.6 8.3.7 8.3.9 8.6.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) | 8.3.1 8.3.6 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) | 8.3.1 8.3.3 8.3.5 8.3.6 8.3.7 8.3.9 8.6.3 |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) | 8.3.1 8.3.3 8.3.5 8.3.6 8.3.7 8.3.9 8.3.10.1 8.6.3 |
| SWIFT CSF 2025 | 4.1 |
US (18)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | IA-5(1) IA-5(1).a IA-5(1).b IA-5(1).c IA-5(1).d IA-5(1).d.1 IA-5(1).d.2 IA-5(1).d.3 IA-5(1).e IA-5(1).f IA-5(1).g IA-5(1).h |
| USA Federal CISA CPG 2022 | 2.B 2.L |
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | ACCESS-1b ACCESS-1d |
| USA Federal CMMC 2.0 Level 2 | IAL2.-3.5.7 |
| USA Federal DoD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap v1.1 | 1.8.1 |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | IA-5(1) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | IA-05(01) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | IA-05(01) |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | IA-05(01) |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | IA-5(CE-1) IA-5(CE-1).f IA-5(CE-1).h IA-5(CE-1).h.1 IA-5(CE-1).h.2 IA-5(CE-1).h.3 IA-5(CE-1).h.4 IA-5(CE-1).h.5 IA-5(CE-1).h.5.i IA-5(CE-1).h.5.ii IA-5(CE-1).h.6 IA-5(CE-1).h.6.i IA-5(CE-1).h.6.ii IA-5(CE-1).h.7 |
| USA Federal 33 CFR Part 101 Subpart F | 101.650(a)(3) |
| USA Federal NERC CIP 2024 | CIP-007-6 5.5.1 CIP-007-6 5.5.2 |
| USA Federal TSA SDP 2021-02F | III.C.1.a |
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7123(c)(1)(B) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.7(b) 500.7(c)(2) |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | IA-05(1) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | IA-05 (01) |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | IA-05 (01) |
EMEA (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | IAM-08.03B IAM-08.04B.4 IAM-08.04B.7 IAM-08.03AS IAM-09.03B IAM-09.03B.2 IAM-09.03B.4 PSS-07.01B PSS-07.01B.2 PSS-07.01B.4 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.4.2-31.g |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 2-2-2 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 2-2-1-5 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 | 2-2-1-8 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SACS-002 2022 | VII.A.TPC-2 |
APAC (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia IoT Code of Practice 2024 | 1.0 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0417 ISM-0421 ISM-0422 ISM-1557 ISM-1558 ISM-1596 ISM-1795 ISM-1980 ISM-2079 ISM-2080 ISM-2081 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 9.3.1.4 9.4.3 9.4.3.1 9.4.3.2 9.4.3.3 9.4.3.4 9.4.3.5 9.4.3.6 9.4.3.7 9.4.3.8 9.4.3.9 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | A7-D2(a)(v) |
| APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 | 16.1.29.C.01 16.1.31.C.02 16.1.31.C.07 16.1.35.C.01 16.1.35.C.02 16.1.42.C.01 16.1.43.C.01 |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 10.4.1(e) |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 9.1.4 |
Americas (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Argentina Reg 132 2018 | B.2.3-7 |
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.05.07.E 03.05.07.F 03.05.12.B 03.05.12.D 03.05.12.E |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Identification & Authentication (IAC) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC). ▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts. ▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services. ▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Identification & Authentication (IAC) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IAC domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to enforce complexity, length and lifespan considerations to ensure strong criteria for password-based authentication.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- IAC-15_A01 for password-based authentication, a list of commonly used, expected or compromised passwords is maintained and updated frequently and when organizational passwords are suspected to have been compromised directly or indirectly.
- IAC-15_A02 for password-based authentication when passwords are created or updated by users, the passwords are verified not to be found on the list of commonly used, expected or compromised passwords.
- IAC-15_A03 for password-based authentication, passwords are only transmitted over cryptographically protected channels.
- IAC-15_A04 for password-based authentication, passwords are stored using an approved salted key derivation function, preferably using a keyed hash.
- IAC-15_A05 for password-based authentication, immediate selection of a new password is required upon account recovery.
- IAC-15_A06 for password-based authentication, user selection of long passwords and passphrases is allowed, including spaces and all printable characters.
- IAC-15_A07 for password-based authentication, automated tools are employed to assist the user in selecting strong password authenticators.
- IAC-15_A08 organization-defined composition and complexity rules for passwords are enforced.
- IAC-15_A09 password composition and complexity rules are defined.
- IAC-15_A10 password change of character requirements are defined.
- IAC-15_A11 minimum password complexity requirements, as defined, are enforced when new passwords are created.
- IAC-15_A12 minimum password change of character requirements as defined are enforced when new passwords are created.
- IAC-15_A13 the following composition and complexity rules for passwords are enforced: <A.03.05.07.ODP[02]: rules>.
Evidence Requirements
- E-IAC-13 Authenticator Types
-
Documented evidence of system authenticator types.
Identity & Access Management - E-IAC-17 Authenticator Configuration Settings
-
Documented evidence of authenticator management settings (e.g., password complexity, default authenticator changes, account lockout, protection of authenticators).
Identity & Access Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Small
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Medium
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Large
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)
Enterprise
- Microsoft Active Directory (https://microsoft.com)
- Microsoft Entra (https://microsoft.com)
- AWS IAM (https://aws.amazon.com)