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

One Response to “A Use Case for File Integrity Monitoring within PowerBroker for Windows”

  1. Abhi Kumar

    Nice piece of information on file integrity monitoring.Great post!!

    October 20, 2014 3:05:04, Reply

Additional articles

Are Your Data Security Efforts Focused in the Right Area?

Posted January 28, 2015    Scott Lang

Vormetric Data Security recently released an insider threat report, with research conducted by HarrisPoll and analyzed by Ovum. Based on the survey responses, it is apparent that there is still a great deal of insecurity over data. However, the results also show that there may be misplaced investments to address those insecurities. I will explain…

Tags:
ghost

GHOST Vulnerability…Scary Indeed

Posted January 28, 2015    BeyondTrust Research Team

A vulnerability discovered by Qualys security researchers has surfaced within the GNU C Library that affects virtually all Linux operating systems. The vulnerability lies within the various gethostbyname*() functions and, as such, has been dubbed “GHOST.” GHOST is particularly nasty considering remote, arbitrary code execution can be achieved. In an effort to avoid taxing DNS lookups, glibc developers introduced…

Tags:
,
dave-shackleford-headshot

Your New Years Resolution: Controlling Privileged Users

Posted January 27, 2015    Dave Shackleford

Is 2015 the year you get a better handle on security? The news last year was grim – so much so, in fact, that many in the information security community despaired a bit. Really, the end-of-the-year infosec cocktail parties were a bit glum. OK, let’s be honest, infosec cocktail parties are usually not that wild…

Tags:
, , ,