IT Perfection · IT Infrastructure Assessment Tools

Free Active Directory Security Assessment

Active Directory Security Assessment from IT Perfection helps business owners, IT managers, and technical teams review users, groups, gpos, domain controllers and related operational risk.

Created by Ali Hassani, CISO - 25+ years of IT, cybersecurity, compliance, Microsoft infrastructure, network security, and IT operations experience.

Assessment overview

What this tool reviews

Active Directory Security Assessment from IT Perfection helps business owners, IT managers, and technical teams review users, groups, gpos, domain controllers and related operational risk.

The scorecard is built for business owners, IT managers, and administrators who need to confirm evidence quality, access boundaries, logging coverage, exception status, and remediation priority before a project, audit, renewal, or support review.

Important disclaimer

This tool is for initial guidance only and does not replace a professional cybersecurity audit, compliance assessment, penetration test, architecture review, or legal/compliance review.

Interactive scorecard

Active Directory Security Assessment scorecard

Answer each item using available configuration records, access lists, logs, ticket history, screenshots, backup evidence, or vendor console data. Results are calculated locally in the browser and are not submitted to IT Perfection.

1. Users

Identity and access lifecycle controls: onboarding, offboarding, MFA, and privileged role boundaries. Evidence to review: export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets.

Do the records for users identify the control owner, approved baseline, evidence location, and most recent validation date?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Controls around user identity determine who can access sensitive systems, data, and admin features, making identity hygiene the first line of defense and operational control. Review evidence for MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups.

Business impact

Poor user hygiene drives unauthorized access risk, orphaned accounts, and longer incident investigations when credentials are misused or forgotten. Exposure increases when exceptions lack owners, alerts are not reviewed, or recovery evidence is missing.

What Users are

Users are the active directory security assessment control area that defines expected configuration, ownership, supporting evidence, and review cadence. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For users, the relevant evidence usually includes export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets. Review the related MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include Microsoft Entra admin center, Active Directory Users and Computers, sign-in logs, audit logs, access reviews, PowerShell exports.

2. Groups

Directory-group design, ownership, and permission inheritance for shared access control. Evidence to review: export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets.

Can the team prove that groups matches the intended configuration and was reviewed after material changes?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Group membership controls shared permissions at scale, so misconfigured groups can silently expand access to sensitive resources across servers, cloud apps, and file shares. Review evidence for MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups.

Business impact

Permission drift in groups is a common cause of accidental compliance issues, unexpected data exposure, and privilege escalation paths. Exposure increases when exceptions lack owners, alerts are not reviewed, or recovery evidence is missing.

What Groups are

Groups are the operating area where policy, configuration, monitoring, and support records need to agree with the actual environment. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For groups, the relevant evidence usually includes export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets. Review the related MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include Microsoft Entra admin center, Active Directory Users and Computers, sign-in logs, audit logs, access reviews, PowerShell exports.

3. GPOs

Policy object scope, inheritance, precedence, and enforcement across OUs and endpoints. Evidence to review: compare deployed policy against an approved baseline, inspect exception lists, confirm endpoint/server coverage, and review last successful update timestamps.

Are exceptions, ownership, monitoring records, and response evidence for gpos documented well enough for audit or incident response?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Group Policy drives baseline security and hardening, so gaps can leave security settings inconsistent across endpoints and servers. Review evidence for security baseline, policy inheritance, CIS/Microsoft baselines, tamper protection, sensor health, vulnerability exposure, exception management.

Business impact

Misordered or conflicting policies can disable controls, create unstable configurations, and increase support or recovery workload after incidents. Exposure increases when exceptions lack owners, alerts are not reviewed, or recovery evidence is missing.

What GPOs are

GPOs are the technical and administrative control set used to prove this part of the environment is configured, maintained, and reviewed. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For gpos, the relevant evidence usually includes compare deployed policy against an approved baseline, inspect exception lists, confirm endpoint/server coverage, and review last successful update timestamps. Review the related security baseline, policy inheritance, CIS/Microsoft baselines, tamper protection, sensor health, vulnerability exposure, exception management, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include Group Policy Management Console, Intune, Microsoft Defender portal, vulnerability dashboards, patch reports, endpoint health exports.

4. Domain Controllers

Authentication source of truth, replication, and hardening controls for AD and services. Evidence to review: collect current-state screenshots or exports for domain controllers, plus ownership, exception, and change records.

Do the records for domain controllers identify the control owner, approved baseline, evidence location, and most recent validation date?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Domain controllers authenticate users and services, so their security posture directly affects every identity-based workflow in the environment. Review evidence for control objective, evidence trail, exception handling, review cadence, owner accountability, validation record.

Business impact

A weakly maintained controller creates broad authentication risk and can trigger widespread login, policy, or service outages. Exposure increases when exceptions lack owners, alerts are not reviewed, or recovery evidence is missing.

What Domain Controllers are

Domain Controllers are the active directory security assessment control area that defines expected configuration, ownership, supporting evidence, and review cadence. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For domain controllers, the relevant evidence usually includes collect current-state screenshots or exports for domain controllers, plus ownership, exception, and change records. Review the related control objective, evidence trail, exception handling, review cadence, owner accountability, validation record, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include admin console, ticketing system, monitoring platform, configuration export, documentation repository.

5. Service Accounts

Credential storage, least-privilege service permissions, and rotation strategy. Evidence to review: export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets.

Can the team prove that service accounts matches the intended configuration and was reviewed after material changes?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Service accounts frequently run with elevated privileges; weak controls here can bypass normal user protections and persist silently in environments. Review evidence for MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups.

Business impact

Compromised or over-privileged service accounts can enable lateral movement and prolonged attacker persistence. Exposure increases when exceptions lack owners, alerts are not reviewed, or recovery evidence is missing.

What Service Accounts are

Service Accounts are the operating area where policy, configuration, monitoring, and support records need to agree with the actual environment. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For service accounts, the relevant evidence usually includes export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets. Review the related MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include Microsoft Entra admin center, Active Directory Users and Computers, sign-in logs, audit logs, access reviews, PowerShell exports.

6. Documentation

Operational runbooks, evidence repositories, and procedure accuracy. Evidence to review: sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners.

Are exceptions, ownership, monitoring records, and response evidence for documentation documented well enough for audit or incident response?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Documentation must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs.

Business impact

Weak documentation controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. Risk increases when ownership, evidence, or exceptions are not documented.

What Documentation is

Documentation is the technical and administrative control set used to prove this part of the environment is configured, maintained, and reviewed. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For documentation, the relevant evidence usually includes sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners. Review the related SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include ticketing system, documentation portal, change calendar, asset inventory, monitoring alerts, configuration exports.

7. Monitoring

Telemetry collection, alert thresholds, and escalation workflows. Evidence to review: inspect zone changes, resolver paths, DHCP scope utilization, alert thresholds, log retention, NTP synchronization, and monitoring coverage gaps.

Do the records for monitoring identify the control owner, approved baseline, evidence location, and most recent validation date?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Monitoring must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for forwarders, secure dynamic updates, DHCP failover, reservations, lease scope utilization, syslog, SNMP, NetFlow, SIEM correlation.

Business impact

Weak monitoring controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. Risk increases when ownership, evidence, or exceptions are not documented.

What Monitoring is

Monitoring is the active directory security assessment control area that defines expected configuration, ownership, supporting evidence, and review cadence. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For monitoring, the relevant evidence usually includes inspect zone changes, resolver paths, DHCP scope utilization, alert thresholds, log retention, NTP synchronization, and monitoring coverage gaps. Review the related forwarders, secure dynamic updates, DHCP failover, reservations, lease scope utilization, syslog, SNMP, NetFlow, SIEM correlation, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include DNS/DHCP consoles, SIEM, syslog server, network monitoring dashboards, packet captures, availability reports.

8. Ownership

RACI clarity for approvals, maintenance, and review obligations. Evidence to review: sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners.

Can the team prove that ownership matches the intended configuration and was reviewed after material changes?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Ownership must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs.

Business impact

Weak ownership controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. It often becomes visible during audits, renewals, or outside reviews.

What Ownership is

Ownership is the operating area where policy, configuration, monitoring, and support records need to agree with the actual environment. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For ownership, the relevant evidence usually includes sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners. Review the related SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include ticketing system, documentation portal, change calendar, asset inventory, monitoring alerts, configuration exports.

Printable report

Downloadable and printable Active Directory Security Assessment report

Free Active Directory Security Assessment Report
Ali Hassani, CISO and IT infrastructure consultant

Ali Hassani, CISO

Created by Ali Hassani, CISO - 25+ years of IT, cybersecurity, compliance, and infrastructure experience.

Certifications: CISSP, CCISO, CCNP, CCNA, MCSE, MCSA Security, MCITP, MCP, and MCTS. View Ali's IT Perfection profile.

Complete the assessment and calculate results to populate this report with your score, findings, recommendations, and priority roadmap.

Client support resources

IT Perfection can review the evidence, validate findings, and help prioritize remediation for managed IT, Microsoft 365, Azure, endpoint security, backup, servers, network infrastructure, and co-managed IT.

Disclaimer: This free tool is a preliminary self-assessment and educational resource. It does not replace a professional cybersecurity audit, compliance assessment, penetration test, or legal/compliance review.

Ali Hassani, CISO and IT infrastructure specialist

Ali Hassani expertise

Active Directory Security Assessment guidance backed by real infrastructure experience

Ali Hassani is a cybersecurity consultant, virtual CISO, network security engineer, and IT infrastructure specialist with more than 25 years of experience helping organizations design, secure, audit, and support business IT environments.