Background 

In 2022, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) conducted a red team assessment (RTA) at the request of a large critical infrastructure organization with multiple geographically separated sites. The team gained persistent access to the organization’s network, moved laterally across the organization’s multiple geographically separated sites, and eventually gained access to systems adjacent to the organization’s sensitive business systems (SBSs). Multifactor authentication (MFA) prompts prevented the team from achieving access to one SBS, and the team was unable to complete its viable plan to compromise a second SBSs within the assessment period.

Despite having a mature cyber posture, the organization did not detect the red team’s activity throughout the assessment, including when the team attempted to trigger a security response:

“CISA has authority to, upon request, provide analyses, expertise, and other technical assistance to critical infrastructure owners and operators and provide operational and timely technical assistance to Federal and non-Federal entities with respect to cybersecurity risks. (See generally 6 U.S.C. §§ 652[c][5], 659[c][6].) After receiving a request for a red team assessment (RTA) from an organization and coordinating some high-level details of the engagement with certain personnel at the organization, CISA conducted the RTA over a three-month period in 2022.

During RTAs, a CISA red team emulates cyber threat actors to assess an organization’s cyber detection and response capabilities. During Phase I, the red team attempts to gain and maintain persistent access to an organization’s enterprise network while avoiding detection and evading defenses. During Phase II, the red team attempts to trigger a security response from the organization’s people, processes, or technology.

The “victim” for this assessment was a large organization with multiple geographically separated sites throughout the United States. For this assessment, the red team’s goal during Phase I was to gain access to certain sensitive business systems (SBSs).” (1) 

Red Team Assessment (RTA):  Key Findings to Improve Monitoring and Hardening of Networks

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released a Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) detailing tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and key findings from the Red Team assessment to provide network defenders of critical infrastructure organizations proactive steps they can take to reduce the threat of similar activity from malicious cyber actors.

The advisory highlights the importance for all organizations to collect and monitor logs for unusual activity as well as continuous testing and exercises to ensure their environment is not vulnerable to compromise, regardless of its cybersecurity maturity level.

Key Issues

The red team noted the following key issues relevant to the security of the organization’s network. These findings contributed to the team’s ability to gain persistent, undetected access across the organization’s sites. See the Mitigations section for recommendations on how to mitigate these issues.

• Insufficient host and network monitoring. Most of the red team’s Phase II actions failed to provoke a response from the people, processes, and technology defending the organization’s network. The organization failed to detect lateral movement, persistence, and C2 activity via their intrusion detection or prevention systems, endpoint protection platform, web proxy logs, and Windows event logs. Additionally, throughout Phase I, the team received no de-conflictions or confirmation that the organization caught their activity. Below is a list of some of the higher-risk activities conducted by the team that were opportunities for detection:
  • Phishing
  • Lateral movement reuse
  • Generation and use of the golden ticket
  • Anomalous LDAP traffic
  • Anomalous internal share enumeration
  • Unconstrained Delegation server compromise
  • DCSync
  • Anomalous account usage during lateral movement
  • Anomalous outbound network traffic
  • Anomalous outbound SSH connections to the team’s cloud servers from workstations
• Lack of monitoring on endpoint management systems. The team used the organization’s MDM system to gain root access to machines across the organization’s network without being detected. Endpoint management systems provide elevated access to thousands of hosts and should be treated as high value assets (HVAs) with additional restrictions and monitoring.
• KRBTGT never changed. The Site 1 krbtgt account password had not been updated for over a decade. The krbtgt account is a domain default account that acts as a service account for the key distribution center (KDC) service used to encrypt and sign all Kerberos tickets for the domain. Compromise of the krbtgt account could provide adversaries with the ability to sign their own TGTs, facilitating domain access years after the date of compromise. The red team was able to use the krbtgt account to forge TGTs for multiple accounts throughout Phase I.
• Excessive permissions to standard users. The team discovered several standard user accounts that have local administrator access to critical servers. This misconfiguration allowed the team to use the low-level access of a phished user to move laterally to an Unconstrained Delegation host and compromise the entire domain.
• Hosts with Unconstrained Delegation enabled unnecessarily. Hosts with Unconstrained Delegation enabled store the Kerberos TGTs of all users that authenticate to that host, enabling actors to steal service tickets or compromise krbtgt accounts and perform golden ticket or “silver ticket” attacks. The team performed an NTLM-relay attack to obtain the DC’s TGT, followed by a golden ticket attack on a SharePoint server with Unconstrained Delegation to gain the ability to impersonate any Site 1 AD account.
• Use of non-secure default configurations. The organization used default configurations for hosts with Windows Server 2012 R2. The default configuration allows unprivileged users to query group membership of local administrator groups. The red team used and identified several standard user accounts with administrative access from a Windows Server 2012 R2 SharePoint server.

Additional Issues

The team noted the following additional issues.

• Ineffective separation of privileged accounts. Some workstations allowed unprivileged accounts to have local administrator access; for example, the red team discovered an ordinary user account in the local admin group for the SharePoint server. If a user with administrative access is compromised, an actor can access servers without needing to elevate privileges. Administrative and user accounts should be separated, and designated admin accounts should be exclusively used for admin purposes.
• Lack of server egress control. Most servers, including domain controllers, allowed unrestricted egress traffic to the internet.
• Inconsistent host configuration. The team observed inconsistencies on servers and workstations within the domain, including inconsistent membership in the local administrator group among different servers or workstations. For example, some workstations had “Server Admins” or “Domain Admins” as local administrators, and other workstations had neither.
• Potentially unwanted programs. The team noticed potentially unusual software, including music software, installed on both workstations and servers. These extraneous software installations indicate inconsistent host configuration (see above) and increase the attack surfaces for malicious actors to gain initial access or escalate privileges once in the network.
• Mandatory password changes enabled. During the assessment, the team keylogged a user during a mandatory password change and noticed that only the final character of their password was modified. This is potentially due to domain passwords being required to be changed every 60 days.
• Smart card use was inconsistent across the domain. While the technology was deployed, it was not applied uniformly, and there was a significant portion of users without smartcard protections enabled. The team used these unprotected accounts throughout their assessment to move laterally through the domain and gain persistence.

Noted Strengths

The red team noted the following technical controls or defensive measures that prevented or hampered offensive actions:

• The organization conducts regular, proactive penetration tests and adversarial assessments and invests in hardening their network based on findings.
  • The team was unable to discover any easily exploitable services, ports, or web interfaces from more than three million external in-scope IPs. This forced the team to resort to phishing to gain initial access to the environment.
  • Service account passwords were strong. The team was unable to crack any of the hashes obtained from the 610 service accounts pulled. This is a critical strength because it slowed the team from moving around the network in the initial parts of the Phase I.
  • The team did not discover any useful credentials on open file shares or file servers. This slowed the progress of the team from moving around the network.
• MFA was used for some SBSs. The team was blocked from moving to SBS 2 by an MFA prompt.
• There were strong security controls and segmentation for SBS systems. Direct access to SBS were located in separate networks, and admins of SBS used workstations protected by local firewalls.

What Next?  

• Some of the recommended actions in the CSA that can help all organizations harden their environment and protect against real-world malicious activity by cyber threat actors include:
  • Establish a security baseline of normal network activity; tune network and host-based appliances to detect anomalous behavior.
  • Conduct regular assessments to ensure appropriate procedures are created and can be followed by security staff and end users.
  • Enforce phishing-resistant MFA to the greatest extent possible.
• Mitigations
  • CISA encourages critical infrastructure organizations to apply the recommendations in the Mitigations section of this CSA—including conducting regular testing within their security operations center—to ensure security processes and procedures are up to date and effective, and enable timely detection and mitigation of malicious activity.
  • CISA recommends organizations implement the recommendations in Table 2 of the RIT to mitigate the issues listed in the Findings section of the advisory.
  • These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
  • The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats, tactics, techniques, and procedures.
  • See CISA’s Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.
• View the advisory: go.dhs.gov/Ztg, as the CSA provides other recommended actions, and mitigations as well as more technical details that organizations should review. 

https://oodaloop.com/archive/2019/02/27/securing-ai-four-areas-to-focus-on-right-now/

• The Long View:  The “AI implementation for competitive advantage” climate created by the recent release and adoption rate of ChatGPT has inherent risks, threats, and opportunities.  Take a proactive approach to the potential attack surfaces, points of entry and threat vectors of early-stage AI projects within your organization.