Monitoring Remote Desktop Services logs ... or not?

Published: 2012-03-01
Last Updated: 2012-03-01 09:08:56 UTC
by Bojan Zdrnja (Version: 1)
4 comment(s)

Remote Desktop Services (or RDP, as most people call this service) is undoubtedly one of the most useful services that Windows administrators depend on. Introduced all the way back with Windows NT, Microsoft has been continually adding new features to Remote Desktop Protocol, with the current version 7.1.

One of the cool features Microsoft added initially with Windows Vista was Network Level Authentication (NLA). This new feature that must be supported by both the RDP client and server allows a client to go through the authentication process before connecting to the remote server. This has several benefits, the biggest one being that it requires fewer resources until the authentication process has successfully completed.

As I’ve been spending a lot of time analyzing Windows logs, I found that the introduction of NLA changed behavior of RDP servers regarding logs, due to the way it works. While the overall security level remains the same, consider this more a kind of a reminder on what to look for if you ever have to investigate a security incident concerning RDP connections.

So, before Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008, once we decided to use RDP to connect to a remote machine we fired up mstsc.exe, entered the name or IP address of the destination server and soon (or not so soon, depending on how fast or slow your connection is), the following screen welcomed us:

RDP

In this case the user can enter his/her credentials for the server to verify. In this case, the verification process is done by the target RDP server – behind the curtains, this server either contacted the domain controller or authenticated the user locally. In this case, an event 672 (for successful Kerberos authentication; event 4768 on Windows Vista/7/2008) or event 680 (4776) (in both successful and failed NTLM authentication) will be logged, following by a 528 or 529 (or 4624 and 4625 on Windows Vista/7/2008) event. In case of this event (528 or 529), its Logon Type value will show 10 which means RemoteInteractive or simply RDP.

All good in this case, since we can see the server that the user tried to connect to (the server requesting the authentication), and on the server we can see the source IP address of the user and his/her successful or unsuccessful connection attempt. If you are now collecting logs to a central log management server you can simply report or alert on brute force attempts on RDP.

However, with NLA things changed a bit. Since the authentication process has been changed, if the user now tries to login to a RDP server with his domain credentials, the mstsc.exe client will try to authenticate with the domain controller directly. If this attempt was unsuccessful it will result in a 675 event (pre-authentication failed), or 4771. This is as expected – if we haven’t supplied a valid username and password, the authentication will fail.

The problem I noticed here is lack of context: this event is same as any other authentication attempt in the domain. In other words, there is absolutely no way for an administrator monitoring logs to know if the user in question is trying to connect to a RDP server or just brute forcing accounts. Of course, this is not a security vulnerability since the domain controller will respect all implemented security controls such as account locking but there is a small lack of context which can help an attacker “hide” his true actions (accessing RDP).

So, to wrap this up – if you are monitoring your Windows logs don’t be surprised if suddenly you don’t see many (or any) 529/4625 events with Logon Type 10.

--
Bojan
INFIGO IS

 

Keywords: nla rdp
4 comment(s)
ISC StormCast for Thursday, March 1st 2012 http://isc.sans.edu/podcastdetail.html?id=2362

Comments

What's this all about ..?
password reveal .
<a hreaf="https://technolytical.com/">the social network</a> is described as follows because they respect your privacy and keep your data secure:

<a hreaf="https://technolytical.com/">the social network</a> is described as follows because they respect your privacy and keep your data secure. The social networks are not interested in collecting data about you. They don't care about what you're doing, or what you like. They don't want to know who you talk to, or where you go.

<a hreaf="https://technolytical.com/">the social network</a> is not interested in collecting data about you. They don't care about what you're doing, or what you like. They don't want to know who you talk to, or where you go. The social networks only collect the minimum amount of information required for the service that they provide. Your personal information is kept private, and is never shared with other companies without your permission
https://thehomestore.com.pk/
<a hreaf="https://defineprogramming.com/the-public-bathroom-near-me-find-nearest-public-toilet/"> public bathroom near me</a>
<a hreaf="https://defineprogramming.com/the-public-bathroom-near-me-find-nearest-public-toilet/"> nearest public toilet to me</a>
<a hreaf="https://defineprogramming.com/the-public-bathroom-near-me-find-nearest-public-toilet/"> public bathroom near me</a>
<a hreaf="https://defineprogramming.com/the-public-bathroom-near-me-find-nearest-public-toilet/"> public bathroom near me</a>
<a hreaf="https://defineprogramming.com/the-public-bathroom-near-me-find-nearest-public-toilet/"> nearest public toilet to me</a>
<a hreaf="https://defineprogramming.com/the-public-bathroom-near-me-find-nearest-public-toilet/"> public bathroom near me</a>
https://defineprogramming.com/
https://defineprogramming.com/
Enter comment here... a fake TeamViewer page, and that page led to a different type of malware. This week's infection involved a downloaded JavaScript (.js) file that led to Microsoft Installer packages (.msi files) containing other script that used free or open source programs.
distribute malware. Even if the URL listed on the ad shows a legitimate website, subsequent ad traffic can easily lead to a fake page. Different types of malware are distributed in this manner. I've seen IcedID (Bokbot), Gozi/ISFB, and various information stealers distributed through fake software websites that were provided through Google ad traffic. I submitted malicious files from this example to VirusTotal and found a low rate of detection, with some files not showing as malware at all. Additionally, domains associated with this infection frequently change. That might make it hard to detect.
https://clickercounter.org/
Enter corthrthmment here...

Diary Archives