In a Windows PAW, administrator accounts used for maintaining the PAW must be separate from administrative accounts used to manage high-value IT resources.
Overview
| Finding ID | Version | Rule ID | IA Controls | Severity |
| V-243456 | WPAW-00-001500 | SV-243456r958514_rule | CCI-001082 | medium |
| Description | ||||
| Note: PAW accounts used to manage high-value IT resources have privileged rights on managed systems but no administrative or maintenance rights on the PAW. They only have user rights on the PAW. PAW administrative/maintenance accounts only have administrative rights on a PAW and are used only to perform administrative functions on the PAW. PAW administrative/maintenance accounts are the only admin accounts that have admin rights on a PAW. It is not required that PAW administrative/maintenance accounts be organized by tier. The PAW platform should be protected from high-value IT resource administrators accidently or deliberately modifying the security settings of the PAW. Therefore, high-value IT resource administrators must not have the ability to perform maintenance functions on the PAW platform. Separate PAW admin accounts must be set up that only have rights to manage PAW platforms. PAW administrators have the capability to compromise Domain Admin accounts; therefore, personnel assigned as PAW administrators must be the most trusted and experienced administrators within an organization, at least equal to personnel assigned as domain administrators. | ||||
| STIG | Date | |||
| Microsoft Windows PAW Security Technical Implementation Guide | 2025-05-23 | |||
Related Frameworks
1 mapping across 4 frameworks
Related Frameworks
SCF0 mappings
No source states a mapping between these directly.
Also reachable in 3 hops (1) derived by us, not asserted by any source
Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- SCF Secure Traceability Relationship Mapping (STRM)2026.2equal to
NIST 800-530 mappings
No source states a mapping between these directly.
Also reachable in 2 hops (19) derived by us, not asserted by any source
Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V2R1our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V2R1intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R2our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V1R2intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V2R1our copyintersects(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)V2R1intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
+9 more (top 10 by confidence shown)
NIST 800-1710 mappings
No source states a mapping between these directly.
Also reachable in 3 hops (1) derived by us, not asserted by any source
Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.
3.13.3
1.00
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
- DISA CCI List2025-01-23equal to(normalised)
- NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2, Appendix DRev 2 (Feb 2020, errata Jan 2021)equal to(normalised)
CCI1 mapping
CCI-001082
1.00
- DISA STIG Benchmark (XCCDF)3intersects(normalised)
Details
Check Text (C-243456r958514_chk)
Verify at least one group has been set up in Active Directory (usually Tier 0) for administrators responsible for maintaining PAW workstations (for example, PAW Maintenance group).
Verify no administrator account or administrator account group has been assigned to both the group of PAW workstation administrators and any group for administrators of high-value IT resources.
If separate PAW administrator groups and administrators of high-value IT resources have not been set up, this is a finding.
If a member of any group of PAW maintenance administrators is also a member of any group of administrators of high-value IT resources, this is a finding.
Fix Text (F-46688r722938_fix)
Set up separate domain administrative accounts to manage PAWs from domain administrative accounts used to manage high-value IT resources. Each of these accounts is not to be used for any other purpose.
Note: Personnel assigned as PAW administrators should be the most trusted and experienced administrators within an organization.