Derbycon - The Unintended Risks of Trusting Active Directory

Will Schroeder
Will SchroederOffensive Engineer
The Unintended Risks
of Trusting Active
Directory
@harmj0y
Red teamer and offensive engineer
at SpecterOps
Adaptive Threat Division alumni
Avid blogger (http://harmj0y.net)
Co-founder of GhostPack, Empire,
BloodHound, Veil-Framework
2
@tifkin_
Red teamer, hunter, and
researcher at SpecterOps
Adaptive Threat Division alumni
Forever going after shiny things
Contributor to various
projects/blog posts
3
@enigma0x3
Red teamer and security
researcher at SpecterOps
Adaptive Threat Division alumni
Avid blogger
(https://enigma0x3.net/), COM
lover, CVE holder
4
What is
“Admin Access” ?
Hint: it’s more complicated
than just “local administrators”!
5
The “True” Nature of Administrative Access
▪ Controversial statement: membership in a system’s
local administrators group isn’t what ultimately
matters!
▪ What actually matters is what local/domain groups
have access to specific remote resources (RPC,
remote reg, WMI, SQL, etc.) based on the host
service’s security descriptors
6
7
CIFS
Remote
Registry
WinRM
SCM
WMI
RPC :)
SD
SD
“LOCAL
Administrators”
GENERIC_ALL
“DOMAINuser”
SC_MANAGER_C
REATE_SERVICE
Etc.
SD
SD
SD
SD
Wait, Security
Descriptors? ACLs?
What are Those and Why Should I Care?
8
Security descriptors are the
Windows mechanism to control
authenticated access to
resources, or “securable objects”
9
PS: lots of caveats here :)
What Is a
“Securable Object”?
Why, a Windows object that can have
a security descriptor, of course!
10
SECURITY_DESCRIPTOR
11https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff556610(v=vs.85).aspx
From Owners to DACLs to ACEs
▪ An object’s Owner completely controls an object
▪ An object’s Discretionary Access Control List
(DACL) is collection of Access Control Entries
(ACEs)
▫ ACEs – Allow/Deny rules of who can do what to an object
12
13
Authorization Checks
▪ Individual services perform authorization checks
when objects are accessed
▪ Services compare the requestor’s user/group SIDs
to the DACL and grant/deny access
▪ Local “Administrators” is a group many services
grant access to by default (but it could be denied)
14
OK, That’s “Cool”
but Why Should I
Care, Really?
15
Why Care?
▪ It’s often difficult to determine whether a specific security
descriptor misconfiguration was set maliciously or configured
by accident
▫ Existing misconfigurations: privesc/lateral movement opportunities
▫ Malicious misconfiguration changes: persistence!
▪ These changes often have a minimal forensic footprint
▪ Many teams are not aware of these misconfigurations, much
less how to identify, abuse, or remediate them
16
Host-based Security
Descriptors
More than just the service control manager yo’
Discovering Host Securable Objects
▪ Windows documentation lists about 20-30 securable
objects*
▪ We’ve identified 70+! (There are *many* more)
▪ Microsoft Protocol Specifications
▫ Very useful for RPC servers ;)
▪ Find-RegistrySecurityDescriptors.ps1
▪ @tiraniddo’s NtObjectManager project
18*https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379557(v=vs.85).aspx
19
Persistent vs Runtime Security Descriptors
▪ Where do objects get their security descriptor?
▫ Persistent - Security descriptor loaded from registry, file, etc.
▫ Runtime - Security descriptor is in memory
▪ Our approach for enumeration:
▫ Locally as an unprivileged user
▫ Locally as a privileged user
▫ Remotely as an unprivileged user
▫ Remotely as a privileged user
20
Example: Remote Registry
▪ Imagine this scenario: remotely dumping an
endpoint’s machine account hash as an “unprivileged”
user (i.e. not in local admins)!
▪ Backdoor Process
▫ Remotely backdoor the winreg key with an attacker-
controlled user/group (this key == remote registry access)
▫ Add malicious ACEs to a few specific registry hives/keys so
we can read LSA secrets remotely
21
Example: Remote Registry
▪ (Remote) Backdoor Execution
▫ As the backdoor (domain or local) user, connect to the
remote registry service on the backdoored system
▫ Open up specific reg keys linked to LSA and extract their
classes
▫ Combine these class values and compute the BootKey
▫ Use the BootKey to decrypt the LSA key
▫ Use the LSA key to decrypt the machine account hash!
▫ EVERYONE GETS A SILVER TICKET!!
22
Active Directory Security
Descriptors
Everything needs an access control model, even AD
Active Directory ACL Advantages
24
▪ A big advantage: by default the DACLs for nearly
every AD object can be enumerated by any
authenticated user in the domain through LDAP!
▪ Other advantages of AD ACLs:
▫ Changes also have a minimal forensic footprint
▫ Changes often survive OS and domain functional level
upgrades, i.e. “misconfiguration debt”
▫ Anti-audit measures can be taken!
25
Security
Descriptors:
AD GUI
Edition
Generic Rights We Care About
26
GenericAll Allows ALL generic rights to the specified object
GenericWrite Allows for the modification of (almost) all
properties on a specified object
WriteDacl Grants the ability to modify the DACL in the
object security descriptor
WriteOwner Grants the ability to take ownership of the object
Object-specific Rights We Care About (abbreviated)
27
Users User-Force-Change-Password or write to
the servicePrincipalName
Groups Write to the member property
Computers None outside of LAPS :(
GPOs Modification of GPC-File-Sys-Path
Domains WriteDacl to add DCSync rights
Example: Abusing Exchange
▪ Exchange Server introduces several schema changes,
new nested security groups, and MANY control
relationships to Active Directory, making it a perfect
spot to blend in amongst the noise!
▪ Pre Exchange Server 2007 SP1, this included the
WriteDACL privilege against the domain object itself
with Exchange Trusted Subsystem as the principal
28
Active Directory + Host
ACL Abuse
Plugging the Gaps in Attack Chains
▪ Prior to joining active directory, the host is in ultimate
control of who can access its resources
▪ After a machine is joined to AD, a few things happen:
▫ The machine is no longer solely in charge of authentication
▫ A portion of key material for the host is stored in another
location (machine account hash in ntds.dit)
▫ Default domain group SIDs are added to local groups
▫ Management is no longer solely left to the host (i.e. GPOs :)
“Risks” Of Joining Active Directory
30
Active Directory: Before and After
31
Workgroup
Security Principals Local users/groups
Access/Permission
Management
Host-based Security
Descriptors
Authentication NTLM (SAM)
Resource
Administration
Manual
Active Directory
+ Domain users/groups
+ Default domain groups
added to local groups
+ Kerberos/NTLM
(NTDS)
+ GPOs
Active Directory: Before and After
32
DCOM
Service
Administrators
admin
DOMAINDomain Admins
Distributed
COM Users
DOMAINsrvcacct
DOMAINjohnDOMAINsrvadms
DOMAINlee
Security Implications
▪ Host-based security descriptors are the missing
link when thinking about domain attack graphs!
▪ There ARE existing “misconfigurations” in the security
descriptors in some host-based services!
▫ More to come on this in a bit ;)
▪ Host-based security descriptor modifications can be
chained with AD misconfigurations/modifications
▪ “Fills the gap” left by the lack of an AD ACL computer primitive
33
tl;dr Security Implications of Joining Active Directory
▪ When you join a system to Active Directory, you’re
introducing additional nodes into the access graph
that may affect the security of other systems
▪ You’re also implicitly trusting the security of a
large number of other nodes in the graph as well
▫ You’re almost certainly exposing your system’s services
to more access than you realize!
34
Case Study #1
Picking on Exchange Again :)
Case Study: Exchanging Rights
▪ We saw before that the Exchange Trusted
Subsystem group (which contains Exchange servers)
often has a huge number of rights over the domain
▪ So let’s integrate the remote registry host-based
backdoor on an Exchange box!
▫ No changes to the DC or any AD data
▫ Takes advantage of existing misconfigurations!
36
37
Case Study #2
Abusing Existing Misconfigurations
Ingredient #1: Unconstrained Delegation
▪ If a server is configured for unconstrained
delegation, service ticket requests will include the
requestor’s TGT stuffed into the service ticket
▪ So if you can get a principal to auth to an
unconstrained server you control, you can
extract their TGTs out of memory!
▪ More information: https://adsecurity.org/?p=1667
39
Ingredient #2: Effectively Extracting TGTs
▪ Rubeus is a new C# Kerberos abuse toolkit that
includes various ticket extraction capabilities
▪ The monitor action will monitor 4624 logon events
from the event log and extract any new usable
TGT .kirbis from LSASS using LSA APIs
▫ No read handle to LSASS needed!
40https://github.com/GhostPack/Rubeus
Ingredient #3: The Printer Bug
▪ Old but enabled-by-default-on-Windows Print
System Remote Protocol (MS-RPRN)
▪ RpcRemoteFindFirstPrinterChangeNotification(Ex)
▫ Purpose: “REMOTESERVER, send me a notification when
____” (e.g. when there’s a new print job)
▪ Implication: *Any domain user* can coerce
REMOTESERVER$ to authenticate to any machine
▫ Won’t fix by Microsoft - “ by design” ☺
41
Ingredient #3: The Printer Bug
42
Domain User/Attacker: Please authenticate to OTHERHOST
SERVER
OTHERHOST
Abuse Scenarios
▪ Machine account TGT theft via Unconstrained Delegation
▪ NTLM attacks!!!!
▪ NTLM-relay to ______ protocol
▪ Is SERVER$ local admin anywhere? (Relay and login)
▪ LDAP relay anyone…. ☺
▪ NTLMv1 downgrade attacks - XP/2003 anyone?
The Dangerous Recipe
1. Compromise a server configured with
unconstrained delegation
2. Beginning monitoring for delegated TGTs
▫ Start Rubeus’ monitor action with /interval:5
3. Coerce a domain controller to authenticate to the
unconstrained server using SpoolSample
4. Load the extracted ticket, DCSync, profit!
43
44
45
Summary
▪ Access is more than just “local administrators” !
▪ Host based security descriptors (accidentally misconfigured,
configured by default, or maliciously backdoored) can have
far-reaching implications for the security of other
systems in the domain!
▪ Defense should focus on restricting access to ALL securable
objects (host, AD, Exchange, etc.)
46
Questions?
You can find us at @SpecterOps:
▪ @harmj0y , @tifkin_ ,
@enigma0x3
▪ [will,lee,matt]@specterops.io
Credit to @elad_shamir for subsequent
discovery of the printer bug!
Appendix: Printer Bug Details
▪ Print System Remote Protocol (MS-RPRN)
▫ All comms are SMB-RPC (TCP 445)
▫ Named Pipe: pipespoolss
▫ RPC UUID: 12345678-1234-ABCD-EF00-0123456789AB
▫ “Discovered” by reading the protocol spec (likely more
RPC servers that do a similar thing)
47
Appendix: Printer Bug Details
▪ Opnum 62 or 65
▫ RpcRemoteFindFirstPrinterChangeNotification
▫ RpcRemoteFindFirstPrinterChangeNotificationEx
▪ The RPC server is accessible by all domain users
on Windows >= 8 if the Spooler service is started
(Server & Workstations have it enabled by default)
▫ On Windows < 8 , seems possible if the host has
shared a printer
48
Appendix: Coerced Machine Account Authentication
Attack Scenarios
▪ Printer bug isn’t the only way to do this (we’ve already confirmed from
our own research/other that there’s other vectors)
▪ If NTLMv1 enabled? Do an NTLMv1 downgrade and get the machine’s
NTLM hash
▪ NTLM relay
▫ Is a machine account a member of the local Administrators group on any
machine? (Often seen on SCCM and Exchange servers)
▫ NTLM relay to LDAP and grant yourself DCSync rights if LDAP signing not
enforced (see @_dirkjan’s contribution to ntlmrelayx)
▫ Problematic with SMB -> LDAP due to SMB clients setting the signing
bit (thanks @_dirkjan!)
49
Hi Lee,
The team has finished its investigation and determined the issue is by-design.
From the NTLM side of things, this is a relay attack, and there are plenty of mitigations that customers can
use to mitigate this particular attack:
1. Restrict NTLM usage
2. Configure/enable Extended Protection for Authentication for all services that support it.
3. Enable SMB Signing or SMB Encryption
4. Do not grant machine accounts administrative privileges to other machine accounts
50
Additional Guidance
▪ Impersonating domain machine accounts is by design? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
▫ We don’t think it was, but nonetheless, it’s possible
▪ Restricting access to hosts/networks goes a LONG way
▫ Windows does not require inbound network access in order to work
in Active Directory!
▫ FIREWALLS!! Host-based and network
▫ IPSec
▪ Prevent relaying to LDAP: Set LdapEnforceChannelBinding to 1
51
1 of 51

More Related Content

What's hot(20)

DerbyCon 2019 - Kerberoasting RevisitedDerbyCon 2019 - Kerberoasting Revisited
DerbyCon 2019 - Kerberoasting Revisited
Will Schroeder10.3K views
(Ab)Using GPOs for Active Directory Pwnage(Ab)Using GPOs for Active Directory Pwnage
(Ab)Using GPOs for Active Directory Pwnage
Petros Koutroumpis548 views
Certified Pre-OwnedCertified Pre-Owned
Certified Pre-Owned
Will Schroeder1.5K views
I hunt sys admins 2.0I hunt sys admins 2.0
I hunt sys admins 2.0
Will Schroeder12.4K views
PHDays 2018 Threat Hunting Hands-On LabPHDays 2018 Threat Hunting Hands-On Lab
PHDays 2018 Threat Hunting Hands-On Lab
Teymur Kheirkhabarov7.7K views
I Hunt Sys AdminsI Hunt Sys Admins
I Hunt Sys Admins
Will Schroeder8K views

Similar to Derbycon - The Unintended Risks of Trusting Active Directory(20)

Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit 2018Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit 2018
Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit 2018
Paula Januszkiewicz3.3K views
Enterprise Cloud SecurityEnterprise Cloud Security
Enterprise Cloud Security
MongoDB232 views
I got 99 trends and a # is all of themI got 99 trends and a # is all of them
I got 99 trends and a # is all of them
Roberto Suggi Liverani5.8K views
Operations: SecurityOperations: Security
Operations: Security
Amazon Web Services238 views
Jesse Burke RDPwned HackMiami7Jesse Burke RDPwned HackMiami7
Jesse Burke RDPwned HackMiami7
Jesse Burke977 views
Active Directory and VirtualizationActive Directory and Virtualization
Active Directory and Virtualization
Aniket Pandey340 views
Anatomy of a Cloud HackAnatomy of a Cloud Hack
Anatomy of a Cloud Hack
NotSoSecure Global Services2.1K views

More from Will Schroeder(17)

Nemesis - SAINTCON.pdfNemesis - SAINTCON.pdf
Nemesis - SAINTCON.pdf
Will Schroeder237 views
Defending Your "Gold"Defending Your "Gold"
Defending Your "Gold"
Will Schroeder2.3K views
A Case Study in Attacking KeePassA Case Study in Attacking KeePass
A Case Study in Attacking KeePass
Will Schroeder9.9K views
A Year in the EmpireA Year in the Empire
A Year in the Empire
Will Schroeder3.9K views
Trusts You Might Have Missed - 44conTrusts You Might Have Missed - 44con
Trusts You Might Have Missed - 44con
Will Schroeder5.6K views
Building an EmPyre with PythonBuilding an EmPyre with Python
Building an EmPyre with Python
Will Schroeder4.7K views
I Have the Power(View)I Have the Power(View)
I Have the Power(View)
Will Schroeder20.8K views
Bridging the GapBridging the Gap
Bridging the Gap
Will Schroeder7.8K views
Building an Empire with PowerShellBuilding an Empire with PowerShell
Building an Empire with PowerShell
Will Schroeder22.3K views
Trusts You Might Have MissedTrusts You Might Have Missed
Trusts You Might Have Missed
Will Schroeder4.6K views
Drilling deeper with Veil's PowerToolsDrilling deeper with Veil's PowerTools
Drilling deeper with Veil's PowerTools
Will Schroeder6.3K views
Derbycon - Passing the TorchDerbycon - Passing the Torch
Derbycon - Passing the Torch
Will Schroeder7.9K views
Adventures in Asymmetric WarfareAdventures in Asymmetric Warfare
Adventures in Asymmetric Warfare
Will Schroeder2.8K views
PwnstallerPwnstaller
Pwnstaller
Will Schroeder2K views
Wielding a cortanaWielding a cortana
Wielding a cortana
Will Schroeder2.8K views

Recently uploaded(20)

childcare.pdfchildcare.pdf
childcare.pdf
fatma alnaqbi13 views
Audience profile.pptxAudience profile.pptx
Audience profile.pptx
MollyBrown8612 views
Existing documentaries (1).docxExisting documentaries (1).docx
Existing documentaries (1).docx
MollyBrown8613 views
google forms survey (1).pptxgoogle forms survey (1).pptx
google forms survey (1).pptx
MollyBrown8614 views
Is Entireweb better than GoogleIs Entireweb better than Google
Is Entireweb better than Google
sebastianthomasbejan10 views
Sustainable MarketingSustainable Marketing
Sustainable Marketing
Theo van der Zee6 views
DU_SERIES_Session1.pdfDU_SERIES_Session1.pdf
DU_SERIES_Session1.pdf
RohitRadhakrishnan8773 views
AI Powered event-driven translation botAI Powered event-driven translation bot
AI Powered event-driven translation bot
Jimmy Dahlqvist15 views
informationinformation
information
khelgishekhar6 views
Pen Testing - Allendevaux.pdfPen Testing - Allendevaux.pdf
Pen Testing - Allendevaux.pdf
SourabhKumar328076 views
zotabet.pdfzotabet.pdf
zotabet.pdf
zotabetcasino6 views
UiPath Document Understanding_Day 2.pptxUiPath Document Understanding_Day 2.pptx
UiPath Document Understanding_Day 2.pptx
RohitRadhakrishnan8250 views

Derbycon - The Unintended Risks of Trusting Active Directory

  • 1. The Unintended Risks of Trusting Active Directory
  • 2. @harmj0y Red teamer and offensive engineer at SpecterOps Adaptive Threat Division alumni Avid blogger (http://harmj0y.net) Co-founder of GhostPack, Empire, BloodHound, Veil-Framework 2
  • 3. @tifkin_ Red teamer, hunter, and researcher at SpecterOps Adaptive Threat Division alumni Forever going after shiny things Contributor to various projects/blog posts 3
  • 4. @enigma0x3 Red teamer and security researcher at SpecterOps Adaptive Threat Division alumni Avid blogger (https://enigma0x3.net/), COM lover, CVE holder 4
  • 5. What is “Admin Access” ? Hint: it’s more complicated than just “local administrators”! 5
  • 6. The “True” Nature of Administrative Access ▪ Controversial statement: membership in a system’s local administrators group isn’t what ultimately matters! ▪ What actually matters is what local/domain groups have access to specific remote resources (RPC, remote reg, WMI, SQL, etc.) based on the host service’s security descriptors 6
  • 8. Wait, Security Descriptors? ACLs? What are Those and Why Should I Care? 8
  • 9. Security descriptors are the Windows mechanism to control authenticated access to resources, or “securable objects” 9 PS: lots of caveats here :)
  • 10. What Is a “Securable Object”? Why, a Windows object that can have a security descriptor, of course! 10
  • 12. From Owners to DACLs to ACEs ▪ An object’s Owner completely controls an object ▪ An object’s Discretionary Access Control List (DACL) is collection of Access Control Entries (ACEs) ▫ ACEs – Allow/Deny rules of who can do what to an object 12
  • 13. 13
  • 14. Authorization Checks ▪ Individual services perform authorization checks when objects are accessed ▪ Services compare the requestor’s user/group SIDs to the DACL and grant/deny access ▪ Local “Administrators” is a group many services grant access to by default (but it could be denied) 14
  • 15. OK, That’s “Cool” but Why Should I Care, Really? 15
  • 16. Why Care? ▪ It’s often difficult to determine whether a specific security descriptor misconfiguration was set maliciously or configured by accident ▫ Existing misconfigurations: privesc/lateral movement opportunities ▫ Malicious misconfiguration changes: persistence! ▪ These changes often have a minimal forensic footprint ▪ Many teams are not aware of these misconfigurations, much less how to identify, abuse, or remediate them 16
  • 17. Host-based Security Descriptors More than just the service control manager yo’
  • 18. Discovering Host Securable Objects ▪ Windows documentation lists about 20-30 securable objects* ▪ We’ve identified 70+! (There are *many* more) ▪ Microsoft Protocol Specifications ▫ Very useful for RPC servers ;) ▪ Find-RegistrySecurityDescriptors.ps1 ▪ @tiraniddo’s NtObjectManager project 18*https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379557(v=vs.85).aspx
  • 19. 19
  • 20. Persistent vs Runtime Security Descriptors ▪ Where do objects get their security descriptor? ▫ Persistent - Security descriptor loaded from registry, file, etc. ▫ Runtime - Security descriptor is in memory ▪ Our approach for enumeration: ▫ Locally as an unprivileged user ▫ Locally as a privileged user ▫ Remotely as an unprivileged user ▫ Remotely as a privileged user 20
  • 21. Example: Remote Registry ▪ Imagine this scenario: remotely dumping an endpoint’s machine account hash as an “unprivileged” user (i.e. not in local admins)! ▪ Backdoor Process ▫ Remotely backdoor the winreg key with an attacker- controlled user/group (this key == remote registry access) ▫ Add malicious ACEs to a few specific registry hives/keys so we can read LSA secrets remotely 21
  • 22. Example: Remote Registry ▪ (Remote) Backdoor Execution ▫ As the backdoor (domain or local) user, connect to the remote registry service on the backdoored system ▫ Open up specific reg keys linked to LSA and extract their classes ▫ Combine these class values and compute the BootKey ▫ Use the BootKey to decrypt the LSA key ▫ Use the LSA key to decrypt the machine account hash! ▫ EVERYONE GETS A SILVER TICKET!! 22
  • 23. Active Directory Security Descriptors Everything needs an access control model, even AD
  • 24. Active Directory ACL Advantages 24 ▪ A big advantage: by default the DACLs for nearly every AD object can be enumerated by any authenticated user in the domain through LDAP! ▪ Other advantages of AD ACLs: ▫ Changes also have a minimal forensic footprint ▫ Changes often survive OS and domain functional level upgrades, i.e. “misconfiguration debt” ▫ Anti-audit measures can be taken!
  • 26. Generic Rights We Care About 26 GenericAll Allows ALL generic rights to the specified object GenericWrite Allows for the modification of (almost) all properties on a specified object WriteDacl Grants the ability to modify the DACL in the object security descriptor WriteOwner Grants the ability to take ownership of the object
  • 27. Object-specific Rights We Care About (abbreviated) 27 Users User-Force-Change-Password or write to the servicePrincipalName Groups Write to the member property Computers None outside of LAPS :( GPOs Modification of GPC-File-Sys-Path Domains WriteDacl to add DCSync rights
  • 28. Example: Abusing Exchange ▪ Exchange Server introduces several schema changes, new nested security groups, and MANY control relationships to Active Directory, making it a perfect spot to blend in amongst the noise! ▪ Pre Exchange Server 2007 SP1, this included the WriteDACL privilege against the domain object itself with Exchange Trusted Subsystem as the principal 28
  • 29. Active Directory + Host ACL Abuse Plugging the Gaps in Attack Chains
  • 30. ▪ Prior to joining active directory, the host is in ultimate control of who can access its resources ▪ After a machine is joined to AD, a few things happen: ▫ The machine is no longer solely in charge of authentication ▫ A portion of key material for the host is stored in another location (machine account hash in ntds.dit) ▫ Default domain group SIDs are added to local groups ▫ Management is no longer solely left to the host (i.e. GPOs :) “Risks” Of Joining Active Directory 30
  • 31. Active Directory: Before and After 31 Workgroup Security Principals Local users/groups Access/Permission Management Host-based Security Descriptors Authentication NTLM (SAM) Resource Administration Manual Active Directory + Domain users/groups + Default domain groups added to local groups + Kerberos/NTLM (NTDS) + GPOs
  • 32. Active Directory: Before and After 32 DCOM Service Administrators admin DOMAINDomain Admins Distributed COM Users DOMAINsrvcacct DOMAINjohnDOMAINsrvadms DOMAINlee
  • 33. Security Implications ▪ Host-based security descriptors are the missing link when thinking about domain attack graphs! ▪ There ARE existing “misconfigurations” in the security descriptors in some host-based services! ▫ More to come on this in a bit ;) ▪ Host-based security descriptor modifications can be chained with AD misconfigurations/modifications ▪ “Fills the gap” left by the lack of an AD ACL computer primitive 33
  • 34. tl;dr Security Implications of Joining Active Directory ▪ When you join a system to Active Directory, you’re introducing additional nodes into the access graph that may affect the security of other systems ▪ You’re also implicitly trusting the security of a large number of other nodes in the graph as well ▫ You’re almost certainly exposing your system’s services to more access than you realize! 34
  • 35. Case Study #1 Picking on Exchange Again :)
  • 36. Case Study: Exchanging Rights ▪ We saw before that the Exchange Trusted Subsystem group (which contains Exchange servers) often has a huge number of rights over the domain ▪ So let’s integrate the remote registry host-based backdoor on an Exchange box! ▫ No changes to the DC or any AD data ▫ Takes advantage of existing misconfigurations! 36
  • 37. 37
  • 38. Case Study #2 Abusing Existing Misconfigurations
  • 39. Ingredient #1: Unconstrained Delegation ▪ If a server is configured for unconstrained delegation, service ticket requests will include the requestor’s TGT stuffed into the service ticket ▪ So if you can get a principal to auth to an unconstrained server you control, you can extract their TGTs out of memory! ▪ More information: https://adsecurity.org/?p=1667 39
  • 40. Ingredient #2: Effectively Extracting TGTs ▪ Rubeus is a new C# Kerberos abuse toolkit that includes various ticket extraction capabilities ▪ The monitor action will monitor 4624 logon events from the event log and extract any new usable TGT .kirbis from LSASS using LSA APIs ▫ No read handle to LSASS needed! 40https://github.com/GhostPack/Rubeus
  • 41. Ingredient #3: The Printer Bug ▪ Old but enabled-by-default-on-Windows Print System Remote Protocol (MS-RPRN) ▪ RpcRemoteFindFirstPrinterChangeNotification(Ex) ▫ Purpose: “REMOTESERVER, send me a notification when ____” (e.g. when there’s a new print job) ▪ Implication: *Any domain user* can coerce REMOTESERVER$ to authenticate to any machine ▫ Won’t fix by Microsoft - “ by design” ☺ 41
  • 42. Ingredient #3: The Printer Bug 42 Domain User/Attacker: Please authenticate to OTHERHOST SERVER OTHERHOST Abuse Scenarios ▪ Machine account TGT theft via Unconstrained Delegation ▪ NTLM attacks!!!! ▪ NTLM-relay to ______ protocol ▪ Is SERVER$ local admin anywhere? (Relay and login) ▪ LDAP relay anyone…. ☺ ▪ NTLMv1 downgrade attacks - XP/2003 anyone?
  • 43. The Dangerous Recipe 1. Compromise a server configured with unconstrained delegation 2. Beginning monitoring for delegated TGTs ▫ Start Rubeus’ monitor action with /interval:5 3. Coerce a domain controller to authenticate to the unconstrained server using SpoolSample 4. Load the extracted ticket, DCSync, profit! 43
  • 44. 44
  • 45. 45 Summary ▪ Access is more than just “local administrators” ! ▪ Host based security descriptors (accidentally misconfigured, configured by default, or maliciously backdoored) can have far-reaching implications for the security of other systems in the domain! ▪ Defense should focus on restricting access to ALL securable objects (host, AD, Exchange, etc.)
  • 46. 46 Questions? You can find us at @SpecterOps: ▪ @harmj0y , @tifkin_ , @enigma0x3 ▪ [will,lee,matt]@specterops.io Credit to @elad_shamir for subsequent discovery of the printer bug!
  • 47. Appendix: Printer Bug Details ▪ Print System Remote Protocol (MS-RPRN) ▫ All comms are SMB-RPC (TCP 445) ▫ Named Pipe: pipespoolss ▫ RPC UUID: 12345678-1234-ABCD-EF00-0123456789AB ▫ “Discovered” by reading the protocol spec (likely more RPC servers that do a similar thing) 47
  • 48. Appendix: Printer Bug Details ▪ Opnum 62 or 65 ▫ RpcRemoteFindFirstPrinterChangeNotification ▫ RpcRemoteFindFirstPrinterChangeNotificationEx ▪ The RPC server is accessible by all domain users on Windows >= 8 if the Spooler service is started (Server & Workstations have it enabled by default) ▫ On Windows < 8 , seems possible if the host has shared a printer 48
  • 49. Appendix: Coerced Machine Account Authentication Attack Scenarios ▪ Printer bug isn’t the only way to do this (we’ve already confirmed from our own research/other that there’s other vectors) ▪ If NTLMv1 enabled? Do an NTLMv1 downgrade and get the machine’s NTLM hash ▪ NTLM relay ▫ Is a machine account a member of the local Administrators group on any machine? (Often seen on SCCM and Exchange servers) ▫ NTLM relay to LDAP and grant yourself DCSync rights if LDAP signing not enforced (see @_dirkjan’s contribution to ntlmrelayx) ▫ Problematic with SMB -> LDAP due to SMB clients setting the signing bit (thanks @_dirkjan!) 49
  • 50. Hi Lee, The team has finished its investigation and determined the issue is by-design. From the NTLM side of things, this is a relay attack, and there are plenty of mitigations that customers can use to mitigate this particular attack: 1. Restrict NTLM usage 2. Configure/enable Extended Protection for Authentication for all services that support it. 3. Enable SMB Signing or SMB Encryption 4. Do not grant machine accounts administrative privileges to other machine accounts 50
  • 51. Additional Guidance ▪ Impersonating domain machine accounts is by design? ¯_(ツ)_/¯ ▫ We don’t think it was, but nonetheless, it’s possible ▪ Restricting access to hosts/networks goes a LONG way ▫ Windows does not require inbound network access in order to work in Active Directory! ▫ FIREWALLS!! Host-based and network ▫ IPSec ▪ Prevent relaying to LDAP: Set LdapEnforceChannelBinding to 1 51