BeyondTrust

Security in Context: The BeyondTrust Blog

Welcome to Security in Context

Bringing you news and commentary on solutions and strategies for protecting critical IT infrastructure in the context of your business.

A Use Case for File Integrity Monitoring within PowerBroker for Windows

Posted August 22, 2013    Jason Silva

As most of you are aware, PowerBroker for Windows v6 introduced File Integrity Monitoring (FIM) into the software.  For those of you who did not know this, FIM allows an Admin to specify protections over files/folders so these assets can only be modified by certain users or service accounts.  It also protects against renaming the file, which leads me to the point of this post.

Occasionally a process needs to be elevated that exists in a location your end-users can overwrite.  With a publisher rule this is OK, because if the user changed the process but gave it the same name as what existed, the publisher or hash rule wouldn’t apply.  But often times, files that get put into these locations are not signed, so a publisher rule won’t work, and hash rules can be inconvenient because you have to change them every time the file gets updated for reasons like say, a version change.  So up to now, the necessity is to build a path rule on it.  This means PowerBroker for Windows would elevate the process so long as it was in this path and had ‘this’ as a filename.  The problem here is; If a malicious user wanted to, and they had the rights, they could (as stated above) replace the would be elevated application with something else, give it the same name as what was being elevated and carry out their devious plans.

But, fear not, for we have a solution: Place a FIM policy on the file.  This prevents the user from deleting, replacing, or even renaming the file, but the Privilege Elevation rule still works because they still have Read/Execute rights to it.

So the uneasiness of elevating something like a local script, for instance, where the user has control of what actually gets executed is now removed. This is a unique feature of the PowerBroker for Windows software, and one I know PBUsers will be able to make great use of.

FIMScreenPolicy_1_shadow FIMScreenRename_2_shadow

Tags:
, , , ,

Leave a Reply

Additional articles

How To Implement The Australian Signals Directorate’s Top 4 Strategies

Posted October 20, 2014    Morey Haber

The Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), also known as the Defence Signals Directorate, has developed a list of strategies to mitigate targeted cyber intrusions. The recommended strategies were developed through ASD’s extensive experience in operational cyber security, including responding to serious security intrusions and performing vulnerability assessments and penetration testing for Australian government agencies. These recommendations…

Tags:
, , , ,
asp-mvc

Exploiting MS14-059 because sometimes XSS is fun, sometimes…

Posted October 17, 2014    BeyondTrust Research Team

This October, Microsoft has provided a security update for System.Web.Mvc.dll which addresses a ‘Security Feature Bypass’. The vulnerability itself is in ASP.NET MVC technology and given its wide adoption we thought we would take a closer look. Referring to the bulletin we can glean a few useful pieces of information: “A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists…

Tags:
4bestpracticesaudits-blog

Four Best Practices for Passing Privileged Account Audits

Posted October 16, 2014    Chris Burd

Like most IT organizations, your team may periodically face the “dreaded” task of being audited. Your process for delegating privileged access to desktops, servers, and infrastructure devices is a massive target for the auditor’s microscope. An audit’s findings can have significant implications on technology and business strategy, so it’s critical to make sure you’re prepared…

Tags:
, , , ,