Meeting the InCommon Assurance profile criteria using Active Directory

[Eric Goodman <>]

Agreed, but I will say that I like the preamble (as well as your answers). 
Assuming the preamble goes right before his comments and your answers (one 
level of quotes of his comments, none for your answers) it looks great.

--- Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: 

 
[mailto:]
 On Behalf Of Ann West
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:05 PM
To: 

Subject: Re: [AD-Assurance] FW: [InC] New Silver with Active Directory 
Cookbook: Call for Comments on 20131002 Draft

Maybe take out my initial note and your comments and  just include Joe's 
questions and your answers?


Ann

On 10/8/13 3:49 PM, "Brian Arkills" 
<>
 wrote:

>Since things have died down, I'm going to assume that the latest 
>revised response meets with everyone's approval such that I should move 
>ahead with sending it.
>
>I'll plan on sending this out around 2pm Pacific time (about an hour 
>from now), unless someone throws a flag on the play. :)
>
>And so folks know, I'll add this pre-amble to that response, to set the 
>stage.
>-----
>Hi folks,
>
>I'm writing today on behalf of the InCommon Assurance Active Directory 
>working group, the folks that recently published the "InCommon Silver 
>with Active Directory Domain Services Cookbook" draft which is open for 
>public comment and review through November 8, 2013. See 
>https://spaces.internet2.edu/x/dJSVAQ for that draft.
>
>Last week, we received a set of extensive comments from Joe St. Sauver.
>Joe took a lot of time carefully reviewing the draft and clearly put 
>some extra effort into those comments. We are grateful for his time.
>
>We are taking the somewhat unusual step of responding to his comments 
>publicly on this list to encourage discussion and review of our draft 
>while also possibly raising other related discussion. Joe has 
>graciously agreed to allow us to respond here so that we can promote 
>broader discussion than a private response (or a response on an obscure 
>web page) would foster. :)
>---
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> 
>>  [ 
>> ]
>>  On Behalf Of Ann West
>> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 12:19 PM
>> To: 
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [AD-Assurance] FW: [InC] New Silver with Active 
>> Directory
>> Cookbook: Call for Comments on 20131002 Draft
>> 
>> I will ask Joe if he minds us responding to his comments on a public 
>>list.
>> Once we agree on the response, I think you should post it, Brian.
>> 
>> Ann
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/7/13 3:11 PM, "Brian Arkills" 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >Here's a revised take, with just two changes:
>> >-a stronger emphasis on the compliance vs. security tension at the
>>start,
>> >-removing the problematic sentence I had that Eric/Jeff called out.
>> >
>> >I've chosen not to try to get into AD-DS as a verifier, because I 
>> >think that overcomplicates the response, and if we really need to 
>> >explain
>>that
>> >detail to Joe, then it should be in the cookbook.
>> >
>> >Assuming folks are copacetic with this version, what's the next step?
>> >
>> >At a minimum, I'm thinking we should ask Joe if he's OK having his 
>> >name associated with our response on the assurance mailing list. If 
>> >not,
>>then
>> >we might want to make his comments anonymous in the wiki & remove 
>> >his name below.
>> >
>> >And beyond that, I'd be happy to either post the response "on behalf 
>> >of the AD-assurance team" or let someone else do so.
>> >
>> >----
>> >Hi Joe,
>> >
>> >Thanks a lot for taking the time to review what we've put together, 
>> >and for the really detailed comments. We really appreciate your time 
>> >and thoughtfulness.
>> >
>> >One thing to keep in mind is that while we share your desire to be 
>> >secure, the obligation of this document is to outline the minimum 
>> >required to meet the IAP. We could recommend quite a few things that 
>> >would be a more secure way to run AD-DS, but that would go above and 
>> >beyond what is required to meet the IAP. We do not mean to 
>> >discourage folks from going beyond, but not everyone can go beyond, 
>> >so we must
>> speak
>> >to the lowest common denominator that meets the IAP.
>> >
>> >To keep things simple, we've put some responses below in-line with 
>> >your comments.
>> >
>> >> >-- "4.1.2 Interpretation of IAP requirement, Section 4.2.3.4 -
>>Stored
>> >> >   Authentication Secrets"
>> >> >
>> >> >   "We interpret this requirement to mean that encryption 
>> >> > software
>>that
>> >> >   decrypts disk sectors (and not just individual Authentication
>> >>Secrets)
>> >> >   as they are accessed would meet the requirement of "only
>> >>decrypt(ing)
>> >> >   the needed Secret when immediately required for authentication"
>>as
>> >> >   spelled out in this section, presuming such software uses
>>Approved
>> >> >   Algorithms for the encryption process."
>> >> >
>> >> >   As written, this would be overbroad, e.g., decrypting a needed
>> >>secret
>> >> >   for one individual might result in the decryption of MULTIPLE
>> >> >   secrets, e.g., the one for that individual AND ones used by
>>others.
>> >> >
>> >> >   As such, that would violate the requirement that passwords must
>> >> >   "only [be] decrypted when immediately required for
>>authentication"
>> >> >   because you're also potentially decrypting OTHER passwords 
>> >> > that
>>are
>> >> >   not needed at all. This would represent a failure to meet the
>> >> >   requirement, at least from my POV.
>> >> >
>> >> >   In the extreme case, imagine a person proposing to use boot time
>> >> >   whole disk decryption: while off, the disk may be encrypted 
>> >> > with
>>an
>> >> >   Approved Algorithm, but upon boot, the entire disk is decrypted,
>> >> >   including the password store, which is then "immediately" (and
>> >> >   intermittently) used until the system is eventually shut down.
>>Would
>> >> >   that be satisfactory/sufficient to meet the requirement? I don't
>> >> >   think so.
>> >> >
>> >> >   Remember that presumably the goal is to limit the exposure of
>> >> >   passwords to unauthorized access or misuse. If the passwords are
>> >> >   routinely held in non-encrypted form whenever the system is
>>"live",
>> >> >   except briefly during boot time when the system is coming up, it
>> >> >   isn't clear to me that the encryption protects against any
>>exposure
>> >> >   except theft of the disk from a quiescent system. Any attack
>>against
>> >> >   the password store while the system is live would not require the
>> >> >   attacker to decrypt the password store if the password store is
>> >> >   routinely decrypted at boot time.
>> >> >
>> >> >   Thus, I explicitly reject the argument advanced in 5.1.1 later in
>> >> >   the document.
>> >
>> >[BA] First, let me say that the AAC interpretation we've received 
>> >validates our approach here. But let's jump down into the details. 
>> >:)
>> >
>> >The details of the whole-disk encryption product you use here
>>definitely
>> >may affect whether this approach is valid or not. We focused on 
>> >BitLocker, because there is no extra cost to use it, and it is 
>> >well-documented and understood. But we didn't want to arbitrarily 
>> >limit everyone else to BitLocker. So let's examine whether BitLocker 
>> >fails to meet the IAP requirement here or not.
>> >
>> >BitLocker decrypts data on a sector by sector basis *when* that data 
>> >is needed. It does *NOT* decrypt the entire disk at boot time. This 
>> >is well-documented and we took the extra step of verifying this with 
>> >Microsoft.
>> >
>> >Based on some rough calculations, user object records are typically 
>> >larger than the most common disk sector size (4K), so it is very
>>unlikely
>> >that when needing to validate one user's password that many other
>>user's
>> >passwords are also decrypted.
>> >
>> >But we'd like to take one step back, and note that the threat being 
>> >addressed by this section is theft of disks, and we believe disk 
>> >encryption is effective whether the system is quiescent or active.
>>We'll
>> >try to make our interpretation of the threat clearer in the cookbook.
>> >
>> >> >-- "5.1.2 Remove Insecure (LMHASH) Stored Secrets"
>> >> >
>> >> >   Good to see you recommend removing LMHASH'd passwords.
>> However,
>> >> >   unfortunately, you ALSO insist that NTLM ALSO not be used,
>> >> >   consistent with:
>> >
>> >[BA] We didn't insist that NTLM also not be used. We believe you 
>> >meant
>>to
>> >say:
>> >"However, unfortunately, you *SHOULD* ALSO insist that NTLM ALSO not
>> be
>> >used"
>> >
>> >In other words, we think you left out the word "should" in your
>>assertion.
>> >
>> >With that assumption, we respectfully disagree. This section of the 
>> >document refers to IAP section 4.2.3.4. IAP section 4.2.3.4 is 
>> >focused
>>on
>> >the security of passwords at rest. The 2 URLs you've noted below are
>>not
>> >relevant to how passwords are stored in AD-DS--they are relevant to 
>> >the negotiation of how to validate that you know the password, and 
>> >speak to the security of transmission on the wire.
>> >
>> >AD-DS has *ONLY* two ways of storing a password:
>> >1. LM hash
>> >2. NT hash
>> >
>> >#1 is used by the LanMan authentication provider. #2 is used by the 
>> >NTLMv1, NTLMv2, and Kerberos authentication providers.
>> >
>> >In other words, turning off NTLMv1 or NLTMv2 doesn't change whether 
>> >or not an NT hash is stored in AD or not. There is currently no 
>> >supported way to turn off whether or not an NT hash is stored.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >   http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc236715.aspx
>> >> >
>> >> >   http://technet.microsoft.com/en-
>> us/library/dd560653%28WS.10%29.aspx
>> >> >
>> >> >   Note that you will run into issues if you have an environment
>>that
>> >> >   uses antique versions of Windows (Vista, 2008, XP, etc.), but
>>those
>> >> >   systems should be getting upgraded or taken off the wire anyhow.
>> >> >
>> >> >   If you can't break use of NTLM entirely, at least break 
>> >> > NTLMv1,
>>see
>> >> >   http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2793313
>> >> >
>> >> >   [Oh! I see that you talk about this in 5.3.2, as well... but you
>> >> >   imply that NTLMv2 is "reasonably secure" -- it isn't]
>> >
>> >[BA] Section 5.3.2 of the document refers to IAP section 4.2.3.6.3. 
>> >IAP section 4.2.3.6.3 is focused on the security of passwords in transit.
>> >We'll comment more about NTLM in the context of passwords in transit 
>> >below.
>> >
>> >> >-- "5.2.1 Transmission of Authentication Secrets Between Credential
>> >> >   Stores"
>> >> >
>> >> >   In the bulleted item, the text current reads "select one of 
>> >> > the
>>AES
>> >> >   options"
>> >> >
>> >> >   There are only two options: AES128_HMAC_SHA1 and
>> >> AES256_HMAC_SHA1
>> >> >
>> >> >   Of the two, AES256_HMAC_SHA1 would be preferable, but it still
>>uses
>> >> >   SHA1 which is deprecated/will be deprecated as the document
>>itself
>> >> >   notes at 2.3 in bold text.
>> >
>> >[BA] The recent security guidance around SHA1 is not that all forms 
>> >of
>> >SHA1 are bad. To repeat: SHA1 != deprecated. If you look more 
>> >closely
>>at
>> >the details, you'll see that the guidance notes use of SHA1 where 
>> >the effective bit count is lower than 112 is what is being discouraged.
>> >Neither AES128_HMAC_SHA1 nor AES256_HMAC_SHA1 stray below that
>> mark, so
>> >both are acceptable.
>> >
>> >•   HMAC-SHA-1 is approved after 12/31/2013 even though SHA-1 for
>> digital
>> >signature is not.
>> >•   HMAC-SHA-1 is capable of security strengths of 80, 112, and 128 bits.
>> >(112 is required after 12/31/2013).
>> >•   SHA-1 is 160 bits and provides at least 112 bits of preimage
>>resistance
>> >that is needed to achieve the 112-bit security strength for HMAC.
>> >
>> >> >   This section also requires use of LDAPS (TLS/SSL), but more
>> >> >   specificity is needed when it comes to explaining what
>>constitutes
>> >> >   an acceptable version of TLS (e.g., is TLS 1.0 good enough? It
>> >> >   shouldn't be treated as such). Require TLS 1.2 with an
>>appropriate
>> >> >   cipher suite (that should be a whole section of its own)
>> >
>> >[BA] We believe this issue to be outside the scope of this document. 
>> >In specific, this document seeks to address issues unique to AD-DS 
>> >when attempting to meet the IAP. TLS vs. SSL and specific versions 
>> >are
>>topics
>> >much broader than the scope of this document. We agree that
>> implementers
>> >will be interested in this topic, but it won't just be AD-DS
>>implementers
>> >that are interested in that.
>> >
>> >> >   The Microsoft references in document section 5.3.1 ("Section
>> >>4.2.3.6.2
>> >> >   requirements") really don't clear this up, either.
>> >> >
>> >> >-- 5.3.4
>> >> >
>> >> >   How would a "temporarily compromised" account be rehabilitated?
>>If
>> >>an
>> >> >   account is every "temporarily compromised," it would need to
>>have a
>> >> >   thorough security audit before being re-enabled, but my worry 
>> >> > is
>> >>that
>> >> >   in some cases folks may just require a password change, and that
>> >> >   obviously wouldn't be enough to ensure that a "temporarily
>> >> >   compromised" account has been restored to a trustworthy state.
>> >> >
>> >> >   Trivial example: assume that while "temporarily compromised" a
>> >> >   backdoor was installed, or access controls were weakened,
>>allowing
>> >> >   persistent access and abuse, even if the password's changed.
>> >> >
>> >> >   Also, this doesn't treat the possibility of a privileged account
>> >> >   being "temporarily compromised", in which case the entire system
>> >> >   (or even multiple systems, in the case of transitive trust
>> >> >   relationships) may need to be audited and remediated.
>> >
>> >[BA] We also believe this issue to be outside the scope of this
>>document.
>> >The IAP sets guidelines around restoring a compromised account. 
>> >Whether the IAP's guidance is effective or not isn't a topic 
>> >specific to this document.
>> >
>> >We will remove the word "temporarily", as we don't think that adverb 
>> >provides any value and may be distracting.
>> >
>> >> >-- 6. "Alternate Controls and Alternative Means Statements"
>> >> >
>> >> >   When I try to access the link in this part, I get an access
>>failure.
>> >
>> >[BA] Thanks, we've fixed this.
>> >
>> >> >-- 7.1
>> >> >
>> >> >   Repeats the unsatisfactory use of a full disk encryption tool
>> >> >   approach. Still not okay.
>> >
>> >[BA] Addressed elsewhere.
>> >
>> >> >-- 7.3
>> >> >
>> >> >   is the bold text "need to validate algorithm to see if this is
>> >> >   good enough" an author's note that was meant to be resolved prior
>> >> >   to publication?
>> >
>> >[BA] Yes, that needs to be cleaned up. Thanks for noticing. :)
>> >
>> >> >   I also have a concern about the 72 hour window mentioned in the
>> >> >   last paragraph of that section. 72 hours is an eternity for an
>> >> >   attacker, and might as well be six months if you're going to make
>> >> >   it 72 hours.
>> >
>> >[BA] 72 hours follows the spirit of the IAP requirements. From
>>4.2.4.2.1:
>> >"The IdPO shall revoke Credential s within 72 hours after being
>>notified
>> >that a Credential is no longer valid or is compromised." Whether 
>> >this
>>is
>> >effective or not is outside the scope of this document. This 
>> >document
>>is
>> >focused on helping folks with AD-DS meet the IAP, not focused on 
>> >having the best/most effective security practices. We share your 
>> >desire to be secure, but our obligation here is to outline the 
>> >minimum required to meet the IAP.
>> >
>> >> >   As suspected, too, I note that the "temporarily compromised"
>> >> >   account is just required to have credentials reset. That's not
>> >> >   enough, as previously discussed.
>> >> >
>> >> >-- 7.4
>> >> >
>> >> >   Practical attacks against NTLMv2 exist. Example:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=videos/derbycon2/1-2-4-zack-
>> >> fasel-pwned
>> >> >-in-60-seconds-from-network-guest-to-windows-domain-admin
>> >> >
>> >> >   Repeats the unacceptable "temporarily compromised" language.
>> >> >
>> >> >   (yes, Zack is in the running for one of the top 10 most annoying
>> >> >   presenters of all time, but still)
>> >
>> >[BA] Yes, practical attacks against NTLMv2 exist (as they do for
>>Kerberos
>> >too). There are various pass-the-hash and pass-the-ticket
>>vulnerabilities
>> >documented/known. But that's not relevant here because we are 
>> >focused
>> on
>> >AD-DS as part of your IDMS meeting the IAP. I don't believe your
>>comments
>> >here are really specific to any particular section, so I'll take the 
>> >liberty of being a bit more general too.
>> >
>> >Our relevant assertions are basically that:
>> >1) NTLMv2 can't be used to authenticate to the IdP and
>> >2) it is impractical to deduce a user's password by intercepting 
>> >NTLMv2 packets
>> >
>> >Therefore, NTLMv2 use is not in violation of the Silver IAP 
>> >(assuming NTLM cannot be used to authenticate to the IdP).
>> >
>> >From the AD Cookbook: "Even though such intercepted credentials may 
>> >be used to gain access to, e.g., file shares in the AD Domain, this 
>> >does
>>not
>> >allow the IdP authentication process to be compromised."
>> >
>> >> >-- 7.6
>> >> >
>> >> >   If a persistent password is used, how does it preclude a replay
>> >> >   attack? The persistent password is the same thing this time, and
>> >> >   next time, and the time after that, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> >   A replay-resistent credential would be something like a one-time
>> >> >   crypto fob -- you can't replay that credential because it's
>> >>different
>> >> >   every time you use it...
>> >
>> >[BA] We believe your comments here are specific to section 7.5. But 
>> >we note that we probably led you astray because of a mistake in 
>> >section
>>7.6
>> >where we say "the authentication event resists replay attack." We 
>> >meant to say "resists eavesdropping attack". We'll fix that mistake.
>> >
>> >7.6 is in support of IAP section 4.2.5.2 (which we discuss in our
>>section
>> >5.3.3). IAP 4.2.5.2 is focused on protected channels. Protected
>>Channels
>> >resist eavesdropper attacks, which is the requirement, not to 
>> >preclude eavesdropper attacks. The password is clearly replayable. 
>> >The packet containing the password is not, because the protected 
>> >channel keeps it from being so. Similarly, the packet is clearly 
>> >eavesdroppable, but the unencrypted ciphertext is what is not 
>> >eavesdroppable. And the measure
>>of
>> >“how hard does it need to be” is “it needs to be a protected channel”.
>> >
>> >> >-- Appendix A
>> >> >
>> >> >   Recommend removal/decommissioning of all Windows XP systems.
>> >
>> >[BA] While a valiant suggestion, not required to meet the IAP.
>> >
>> >> >-- Appendix B
>> >> >
>> >> >   Has the Cisco issue been filed with Cisco Security Intelligence
>> >> >   Operations? If not, a case should be opened. See
>> >> >   http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/home.x
>> >
>> >[BA] No. I (Brian Arkills) noted this issue because while working 
>> >with
>>a
>> >customer at the UW, I discovered it. I don't have any direct
>>relationship
>> >with Cisco and have encouraged the customer to report & follow up.
>