home / skills / prowler-cloud / prowler / prowler-compliance

prowler-compliance skill

/skills/prowler-compliance

This skill helps you create and manage Prowler compliance frameworks across providers, mapping checks and attributes to controls for effective governance.

npx playbooks add skill prowler-cloud/prowler --skill prowler-compliance

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (8)
SKILL.md
14.3 KB
---
name: prowler-compliance
description: >
  Creates and manages Prowler compliance frameworks.
  Trigger: When working with compliance frameworks (CIS, NIST, PCI-DSS, SOC2, GDPR, ISO27001, ENS, MITRE ATT&CK).
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  author: prowler-cloud
  version: "1.1"
  scope: [root, sdk]
  auto_invoke:
    - "Creating/updating compliance frameworks"
    - "Mapping checks to compliance controls"
allowed-tools: Read, Edit, Write, Glob, Grep, Bash, WebFetch, WebSearch, Task
---

## When to Use

Use this skill when:
- Creating a new compliance framework for any provider
- Adding requirements to existing frameworks
- Mapping checks to compliance controls
- Understanding compliance framework structures and attributes

## Compliance Framework Location

Frameworks are JSON files located in: `prowler/compliance/{provider}/{framework_name}_{provider}.json`

**Supported Providers:**
- `aws` - Amazon Web Services
- `azure` - Microsoft Azure
- `gcp` - Google Cloud Platform
- `kubernetes` - Kubernetes
- `github` - GitHub
- `m365` - Microsoft 365
- `alibabacloud` - Alibaba Cloud
- `oraclecloud` - Oracle Cloud
- `oci` - Oracle Cloud Infrastructure
- `nhn` - NHN Cloud
- `mongodbatlas` - MongoDB Atlas
- `iac` - Infrastructure as Code
- `llm` - Large Language Models

## Base Framework Structure

All compliance frameworks share this base structure:

```json
{
  "Framework": "FRAMEWORK_NAME",
  "Name": "Full Framework Name with Version",
  "Version": "X.X",
  "Provider": "PROVIDER",
  "Description": "Framework description...",
  "Requirements": [
    {
      "Id": "requirement_id",
      "Description": "Requirement description",
      "Name": "Optional requirement name",
      "Attributes": [...],
      "Checks": ["check_name_1", "check_name_2"]
    }
  ]
}
```

## Framework-Specific Attribute Structures

Each framework type has its own attribute model. Below are the exact structures used by Prowler:

### CIS (Center for Internet Security)

**Framework ID format:** `cis_{version}_{provider}` (e.g., `cis_5.0_aws`)

```json
{
  "Id": "1.1",
  "Description": "Maintain current contact details",
  "Checks": ["account_maintain_current_contact_details"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "Section": "1 Identity and Access Management",
      "SubSection": "Optional subsection",
      "Profile": "Level 1",
      "AssessmentStatus": "Automated",
      "Description": "Detailed attribute description",
      "RationaleStatement": "Why this control matters",
      "ImpactStatement": "Impact of implementing this control",
      "RemediationProcedure": "Steps to fix the issue",
      "AuditProcedure": "Steps to verify compliance",
      "AdditionalInformation": "Extra notes",
      "DefaultValue": "Default configuration value",
      "References": "https://docs.example.com/reference"
    }
  ]
}
```

**Profile values:** `Level 1`, `Level 2`, `E3 Level 1`, `E3 Level 2`, `E5 Level 1`, `E5 Level 2`
**AssessmentStatus values:** `Automated`, `Manual`

---

### ISO 27001

**Framework ID format:** `iso27001_{year}_{provider}` (e.g., `iso27001_2022_aws`)

```json
{
  "Id": "A.5.1",
  "Description": "Policies for information security should be defined...",
  "Name": "Policies for information security",
  "Checks": ["securityhub_enabled"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "Category": "A.5 Organizational controls",
      "Objetive_ID": "A.5.1",
      "Objetive_Name": "Policies for information security",
      "Check_Summary": "Summary of what is being checked"
    }
  ]
}
```

**Note:** `Objetive_ID` and `Objetive_Name` use this exact spelling (not "Objective").

---

### ENS (Esquema Nacional de Seguridad - Spain)

**Framework ID format:** `ens_rd2022_{provider}` (e.g., `ens_rd2022_aws`)

```json
{
  "Id": "op.acc.1.aws.iam.2",
  "Description": "Proveedor de identidad centralizado",
  "Checks": ["iam_check_saml_providers_sts"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "IdGrupoControl": "op.acc.1",
      "Marco": "operacional",
      "Categoria": "control de acceso",
      "DescripcionControl": "Detailed control description in Spanish",
      "Nivel": "alto",
      "Tipo": "requisito",
      "Dimensiones": ["trazabilidad", "autenticidad"],
      "ModoEjecucion": "automatico",
      "Dependencias": []
    }
  ]
}
```

**Nivel values:** `opcional`, `bajo`, `medio`, `alto`
**Tipo values:** `refuerzo`, `requisito`, `recomendacion`, `medida`
**Dimensiones values:** `confidencialidad`, `integridad`, `trazabilidad`, `autenticidad`, `disponibilidad`

---

### MITRE ATT&CK

**Framework ID format:** `mitre_attack_{provider}` (e.g., `mitre_attack_aws`)

MITRE uses a different requirement structure:

```json
{
  "Name": "Exploit Public-Facing Application",
  "Id": "T1190",
  "Tactics": ["Initial Access"],
  "SubTechniques": [],
  "Platforms": ["Containers", "IaaS", "Linux", "Network", "Windows", "macOS"],
  "Description": "Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness...",
  "TechniqueURL": "https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1190/",
  "Checks": ["guardduty_is_enabled", "inspector2_is_enabled"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "AWSService": "Amazon GuardDuty",
      "Category": "Detect",
      "Value": "Minimal",
      "Comment": "Explanation of how this service helps..."
    }
  ]
}
```

**For Azure:** Use `AzureService` instead of `AWSService`
**For GCP:** Use `GCPService` instead of `AWSService`
**Category values:** `Detect`, `Protect`, `Respond`
**Value values:** `Minimal`, `Partial`, `Significant`

---

### NIST 800-53

**Framework ID format:** `nist_800_53_revision_{version}_{provider}` (e.g., `nist_800_53_revision_5_aws`)

```json
{
  "Id": "ac_2_1",
  "Name": "AC-2(1) Automated System Account Management",
  "Description": "Support the management of system accounts...",
  "Checks": ["iam_password_policy_minimum_length_14"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "ItemId": "ac_2_1",
      "Section": "Access Control (AC)",
      "SubSection": "Account Management (AC-2)",
      "SubGroup": "AC-2(3) Disable Accounts",
      "Service": "iam"
    }
  ]
}
```

---

### Generic Compliance (Fallback)

For frameworks without specific attribute models:

```json
{
  "Id": "requirement_id",
  "Description": "Requirement description",
  "Name": "Optional name",
  "Checks": ["check_name"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "ItemId": "item_id",
      "Section": "Section name",
      "SubSection": "Subsection name",
      "SubGroup": "Subgroup name",
      "Service": "service_name",
      "Type": "type"
    }
  ]
}
```

---

### AWS Well-Architected Framework

**Framework ID format:** `aws_well_architected_framework_{pillar}_pillar_aws`

```json
{
  "Id": "SEC01-BP01",
  "Description": "Establish common guardrails...",
  "Name": "Establish common guardrails",
  "Checks": ["account_part_of_organizations"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "Name": "Establish common guardrails",
      "WellArchitectedQuestionId": "securely-operate",
      "WellArchitectedPracticeId": "sec_securely_operate_multi_accounts",
      "Section": "Security",
      "SubSection": "Security foundations",
      "LevelOfRisk": "High",
      "AssessmentMethod": "Automated",
      "Description": "Detailed description",
      "ImplementationGuidanceUrl": "https://docs.aws.amazon.com/..."
    }
  ]
}
```

---

### KISA ISMS-P (Korea)

**Framework ID format:** `kisa_isms_p_{year}_{provider}` (e.g., `kisa_isms_p_2023_aws`)

```json
{
  "Id": "1.1.1",
  "Description": "Requirement description",
  "Name": "Requirement name",
  "Checks": ["check_name"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "Domain": "1. Management System",
      "Subdomain": "1.1 Management System Establishment",
      "Section": "1.1.1 Section Name",
      "AuditChecklist": ["Checklist item 1", "Checklist item 2"],
      "RelatedRegulations": ["Regulation 1"],
      "AuditEvidence": ["Evidence type 1"],
      "NonComplianceCases": ["Non-compliance example"]
    }
  ]
}
```

---

### C5 (Germany Cloud Computing Compliance Criteria Catalogue)

**Framework ID format:** `c5_{provider}` (e.g., `c5_aws`)

```json
{
  "Id": "BCM-01",
  "Description": "Requirement description",
  "Name": "Requirement name",
  "Checks": ["check_name"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "Section": "BCM Business Continuity Management",
      "SubSection": "BCM-01",
      "Type": "Basic Criteria",
      "AboutCriteria": "Description of criteria",
      "ComplementaryCriteria": "Additional criteria"
    }
  ]
}
```

---

### CCC (Cloud Computing Compliance)

**Framework ID format:** `ccc_{provider}` (e.g., `ccc_aws`)

```json
{
  "Id": "CCC.C01",
  "Description": "Requirement description",
  "Name": "Requirement name",
  "Checks": ["check_name"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "FamilyName": "Cryptography & Key Management",
      "FamilyDescription": "Family description",
      "Section": "CCC.C01",
      "SubSection": "Key Management",
      "SubSectionObjective": "Objective description",
      "Applicability": ["IaaS", "PaaS", "SaaS"],
      "Recommendation": "Recommended action",
      "SectionThreatMappings": [{"threat": "T1190"}],
      "SectionGuidelineMappings": [{"guideline": "NIST"}]
    }
  ]
}
```

---

### Prowler ThreatScore

**Framework ID format:** `prowler_threatscore_{provider}` (e.g., `prowler_threatscore_aws`)

Prowler ThreatScore is a custom security scoring framework developed by Prowler that evaluates AWS account security based on **four main pillars**:

| Pillar | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| **1. IAM** | Identity and Access Management controls (authentication, authorization, credentials) |
| **2. Attack Surface** | Network exposure, public resources, security group rules |
| **3. Logging and Monitoring** | Audit logging, threat detection, forensic readiness |
| **4. Encryption** | Data at rest and in transit encryption |

**Scoring System:**
- **LevelOfRisk** (1-5): Severity of the security issue
  - `5` = Critical (e.g., root MFA, public S3 buckets)
  - `4` = High (e.g., user MFA, public EC2)
  - `3` = Medium (e.g., password policies, encryption)
  - `2` = Low
  - `1` = Informational
- **Weight**: Impact multiplier for score calculation
  - `1000` = Critical controls (root security, public exposure)
  - `100` = High-impact controls (user authentication, monitoring)
  - `10` = Standard controls (password policies, encryption)
  - `1` = Low-impact controls (best practices)

```json
{
  "Id": "1.1.1",
  "Description": "Ensure MFA is enabled for the 'root' user account",
  "Checks": ["iam_root_mfa_enabled"],
  "Attributes": [
    {
      "Title": "MFA enabled for 'root'",
      "Section": "1. IAM",
      "SubSection": "1.1 Authentication",
      "AttributeDescription": "The root user account holds the highest level of privileges within an AWS account. Enabling MFA enhances security by adding an additional layer of protection.",
      "AdditionalInformation": "Enabling MFA enhances console security by requiring the authenticating user to both possess a time-sensitive key-generating device and have knowledge of their credentials.",
      "LevelOfRisk": 5,
      "Weight": 1000
    }
  ]
}
```

**Available for providers:** AWS, Kubernetes, M365

---

## Available Compliance Frameworks

### AWS (41 frameworks)
| Framework | File Name |
|-----------|-----------|
| CIS 1.4, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 | `cis_{version}_aws.json` |
| ISO 27001:2013, 2022 | `iso27001_{year}_aws.json` |
| NIST 800-53 Rev 4, 5 | `nist_800_53_revision_{version}_aws.json` |
| NIST 800-171 Rev 2 | `nist_800_171_revision_2_aws.json` |
| NIST CSF 1.1, 2.0 | `nist_csf_{version}_aws.json` |
| PCI DSS 3.2.1, 4.0 | `pci_{version}_aws.json` |
| HIPAA | `hipaa_aws.json` |
| GDPR | `gdpr_aws.json` |
| SOC 2 | `soc2_aws.json` |
| FedRAMP Low/Moderate | `fedramp_{level}_revision_4_aws.json` |
| ENS RD2022 | `ens_rd2022_aws.json` |
| MITRE ATT&CK | `mitre_attack_aws.json` |
| C5 Germany | `c5_aws.json` |
| CISA | `cisa_aws.json` |
| FFIEC | `ffiec_aws.json` |
| RBI Cyber Security | `rbi_cyber_security_framework_aws.json` |
| AWS Well-Architected | `aws_well_architected_framework_{pillar}_pillar_aws.json` |
| AWS FTR | `aws_foundational_technical_review_aws.json` |
| GxP 21 CFR Part 11, EU Annex 11 | `gxp_{standard}_aws.json` |
| KISA ISMS-P 2023 | `kisa_isms_p_2023_aws.json` |
| NIS2 | `nis2_aws.json` |

### Azure (15+ frameworks)
| Framework | File Name |
|-----------|-----------|
| CIS 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 4.0 | `cis_{version}_azure.json` |
| ISO 27001:2022 | `iso27001_2022_azure.json` |
| ENS RD2022 | `ens_rd2022_azure.json` |
| MITRE ATT&CK | `mitre_attack_azure.json` |
| PCI DSS 4.0 | `pci_4.0_azure.json` |
| NIST CSF 2.0 | `nist_csf_2.0_azure.json` |

### GCP (15+ frameworks)
| Framework | File Name |
|-----------|-----------|
| CIS 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 | `cis_{version}_gcp.json` |
| ISO 27001:2022 | `iso27001_2022_gcp.json` |
| HIPAA | `hipaa_gcp.json` |
| MITRE ATT&CK | `mitre_attack_gcp.json` |
| PCI DSS 4.0 | `pci_4.0_gcp.json` |
| NIST CSF 2.0 | `nist_csf_2.0_gcp.json` |

### Kubernetes (6 frameworks)
| Framework | File Name |
|-----------|-----------|
| CIS 1.8, 1.10, 1.11 | `cis_{version}_kubernetes.json` |
| ISO 27001:2022 | `iso27001_2022_kubernetes.json` |
| PCI DSS 4.0 | `pci_4.0_kubernetes.json` |

### Other Providers
- **GitHub:** `cis_1.0_github.json`
- **M365:** `cis_4.0_m365.json`, `iso27001_2022_m365.json`
- **NHN:** `iso27001_2022_nhn.json`

## Best Practices

1. **Requirement IDs**: Follow the original framework numbering exactly (e.g., "1.1", "A.5.1", "T1190", "ac_2_1")
2. **Check Mapping**: Map to existing checks when possible. Use `Checks: []` for manual-only requirements
3. **Completeness**: Include all framework requirements, even those without automated checks
4. **Version Control**: Include framework version in `Name` and `Version` fields
5. **File Naming**: Use format `{framework}_{version}_{provider}.json`
6. **Validation**: Prowler validates JSON against Pydantic models at startup - invalid JSON will cause errors

## Commands

```bash
# List available frameworks for a provider
prowler {provider} --list-compliance

# Run scan with specific compliance framework
prowler aws --compliance cis_5.0_aws

# Run scan with multiple frameworks
prowler aws --compliance cis_5.0_aws pci_4.0_aws

# Output compliance report in multiple formats
prowler aws --compliance cis_5.0_aws -M csv json html
```

## Code References

- **Compliance Models:** `prowler/lib/check/compliance_models.py`
- **Compliance Processing:** `prowler/lib/check/compliance.py`
- **Compliance Output:** `prowler/lib/outputs/compliance/`

## Resources

- **Templates:** See [assets/](assets/) for framework JSON templates
- **Documentation:** See [references/compliance-docs.md](references/compliance-docs.md) for additional resources

Overview

This skill creates and manages Prowler compliance frameworks for multiple cloud and platform providers. It helps define framework metadata, requirements, attributes, and mappings to automated checks so teams can run consistent compliance scans. The skill supports standards like CIS, NIST, PCI-DSS, ISO27001, MITRE ATT&CK, ENS and custom scoring such as Prowler ThreatScore.

How this skill works

The skill edits or generates JSON framework files following Prowler's base structure: Framework, Name, Version, Provider, Description and a Requirements array. It enforces framework-specific attribute models (CIS, ISO27001, MITRE, NIST, ENS, etc.) and maps Prowler checks to each requirement. Generated frameworks are validated against Pydantic models to ensure compatibility with Prowler's compliance processing and outputs.

When to use it

  • Creating a new compliance framework for AWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, GitHub, M365 or other supported providers
  • Adding or updating requirements, attributes, or check mappings for an existing framework
  • Mapping automated Prowler checks to controls for auditability and reporting
  • Preparing frameworks for scans, reports, or multi-framework comparisons
  • Defining custom scoring like Prowler ThreatScore for prioritized remediation

Best practices

  • Use the exact requirement IDs and numbering from the original standard (e.g., 1.1, A.5.1, T1190, ac_2_1)
  • Prefer mapping to existing automated checks; leave Checks empty for manual-only controls
  • Include every requirement, even if it lacks automation, to preserve completeness
  • Embed framework version and provider in Name and Version fields for traceability
  • Follow file naming conventions {framework}_{version}_{provider}.json and validate JSON before use

Example use cases

  • Build a CIS 5.0 framework for AWS and map available Prowler checks to CIS controls
  • Add ISO 27001:2022 requirements for Azure with objective IDs and check summaries
  • Create a MITRE ATT&CK mapping for GCP listing tactics, platforms and detection checks
  • Draft a custom Prowler ThreatScore framework to weight IAM, logging, attack surface and encryption
  • Extend ENS RD2022 controls with Spanish language attributes and execution mode

FAQ

Where are frameworks stored?

Framework JSON files reside under prowler/compliance/{provider}/{framework_name}_{provider}.json.

What if a requirement has no automated checks?

Include the requirement with an empty Checks array to keep the control in reports and mark it manual in Attributes.