Penetration Testing - Uwe Gradenegger

How the TameMyCerts Policy Module for Active Directory Certificate Services (ADCS) can prevent attacks against the ESC1 attack vector

Attacks on Microsoft certification authorities can be aimed at exploiting authorizations on certificate templates. In many cases, certificate templates must be configured to grant the applicant the right to apply for any identities. This can lead to the attacker taking over the identities of Active Directory accounts and subsequently to the elevation of rights. Attacks of this kind are known in the security scene as "ESC1" is labeled.

How the TameMyCerts Policy Module for Active Directory Certificate Services (ADCS) can detect and prevent attacks against the ESC6 and ESC7 attack vectors

With the supposedly good intention of making it possible to issue such certificate requirements with a SAN, guess unfortunately much at many Instructions to set the flag on the certification body EDITF_ATTRIBUTESUBJECTALTNAME2 to activate.

If this flag is activated, a very large attack surface is offered, as any applicant can now instruct the certification authority to issue certificates with any content. This type of attack is known in the security scene as ESC6 and ESC7 known.

How the TameMyCerts Policy Module for Active Directory Certificate Services (ADCS) can help secure scenarios with Microsoft Intune and other Mobile Device Management (MDM) systems

Companies use Mobile Device Management (MDM) products to manage, configure and update mobile devices such as smartphones, tablet computers or desktop systems via the Internet (Over-the-Air, OTA).

Common mobile device management products are:

Microsoft Intune
VMware Workspace One (previously known as AirWatch)
Ivanti MobileIron UEM
Jamf Pro
Baramundi Enterprise Mobility Management
BlackBerry Enterprise Mobility Suite
Sophos Mobile Control
SOTI MobiControl

Signing certificates bypassing the certification authority - solely using built-in tools

In the article "Signing certificates bypassing the certification authority"I described how an attacker with administrative rights on the certification authority can generate a logon certificate for administrative accounts of the domain by bypassing the certification authority software, i.e. by directly using the private key of the certification authority.

In the previous article I described the PSCertificateEnrollment Powershell Module is used to demonstrate the procedure. Microsoft supplies with certreq and certutil However, perfectly suitable pentesting tools are already included with the operating system ex works.

From Zero to Enterprise Administrator through Network Device Enrollment Service (NDES) - and What to Do About It

In the following, I would like to present a highly dangerous PKI configuration, perhaps not necessarily known to the general public, which can probably be encountered quite frequently in this way in corporate networks.

I show how, by exploiting various unfortunate circumstances in the Windows PKI, it is possible to elevate privileges from mere network access to complete Active Directory takeover.

The initial point of attack in this example is the Network Device Enrollment Service (NDES).

Signing certificates bypassing the certification authority

Time and again in discussions about the security of a certification authority, it comes up that abuse of the certification authority could be contained by its security settings.

However, the fact that the integrity of a certification authority is directly tied to its key material and can therefore also be compromised by it is not obvious at first glance.

one must think of the certification authority software as a kind of management around the key material. For example, the software provides a Online interface for Certificate Enrollment takes care of the authentication of the enrollees, the automated execution of signature operations (issuing certificates and Brevocation lists) and their logging (Certification Authority Database, Audit log, Event log).

However, signature operations require nothing more than the private key of the certification authority. The following example shows how an attacker, given access to the certification authority's private key, can generate and issue certificates without the certification authority software and its security mechanisms being aware of this.

With such a certificate, it would even be possible in the worst case, take over the Active Directory forest undetected.

Attack vector on Active Directory directory service via smartcard logon mechanism

In simple terms, public key cryptography can be reduced to the assumption that the private part of each key pair is known only to its owner.

A certification authority is responsible for the correct identification of users, computers or resources. Its issued certificates are therefore granted a trust status because all participants assume that their private key is known only to it.

If an attacker succeeds in gaining knowledge of a certification authority's private key, or at least Perform signatures using the private key, the integrity of the certification authority is no longer guaranteed.

Domain controller does not check extended key usage on smart card login

Anyone who wants to use the smartcard logon function in their company would be well advised to ensure that their certification authority has the strongest possible security hardening. This includes some essential measures:

Removing all unnecessary certification authority certificates from the NTAuthCertificates object in Active Directory: Each certification authority located in this store is authorized to issue smartcard logon certificates in Active Directory for the complete forest.
Use qualified subordinationRestricting the certification authority certificates so that they are only trusted for the extended key usages actually issued. In the event of a compromise of the certification authority, the damage is then limited to these extended key usages. The "Smart Card Logon" Extended Key Usage would then only be present in the certification authority certificate of the certification authority that actually issues such certificates.

What is interesting about these thoughts, however, is that the domain controllers do not check the extended key usages at all when logging in via smartcard.

Active Directory forest compromised by EDITF_ATTRIBUTESUBJECTALTNAME2 flag

In net circulate unfortunately much at many Instructions (also the big players are not excluded from this, not even Microsoft itself or the Grand Master Komar), which fatally recommends that the EDITF_ATTRIBUTESUBJECTALTNAME2 flag should be set on the certification authority - supposedly to be able to issue Subject Alternative Name (SAN) extension certificates for manually submitted certificate requests.

Unfortunately, this approach is not only unnecessary, it also has some unpleasant side effects, which in the worst case can help an attacker to take over the entire Active Directory forest.