Re: name of built-in administrator

From: David LeBlanc (dleblancat_private)
Date: Tue Apr 28 1998 - 20:06:03 PDT

  • Next message: David LeBlanc: "Re: name of built-in administrator"

    Not true.  SP3 merely fixed the ability to enumerate users with the
    NetUserEnum() call via a null session.  This technique requires knowing the
    name of at least one valid user, and is a little less straightforward.  In
    fact, the KB article which covers the RestrictAnonymous setting obliquely
    mentions this capability.
    
    At 02:10 PM 4/28/98 -0400, Vic Anderson wrote:
    >This was supposedly fixed in service pack 3, check out the release notes
    >for Service Pack 3, also check out KB article Q143474 concerning
    >limiting NULL session connections.
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: David LeBlanc [mailto:dleblancat_private]
    >Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 1:12 PM
    >To: BUGTRAQat_private
    >Subject: Re: name of built-in administrator
    >
    >
    >At 10:21 AM 4/28/98 +0400, Evgenii Borisovich Rudnyi wrote in NTBUGTRAQ:
    >>While learning what SID is, I have written two utilities, user2sid and
    >>sid2user, which are actually command line interfaces to WIN32
    >functions,
    >>LookupAccountName and LookupAccountSid. So, no hacking, just what is
    >>permitted by MS.
    >
    >[which allows users to be extracted]
    >
    >This is documented (to some extent) in a knowledge base article.  I
    >wrote
    >an app which grabs all the users (and accounts for why the ISS NT
    >scanner
    >5.0 always gets the admin user, no matter what), and advised Microsoft
    >that
    >I thought this was something that should be fixed.
    >
    >At this time, there is no fix for this, except to filter connections to
    >port 139.  I've tried a couple of things I thought would fix it, but
    >found
    >that it caused severe problems. So, at the moment, if you can get a null
    >session, you can dump all the users, groups, and machine accounts.  You
    >can
    >also cause some other problems, but they are a little arcane, and MS has
    >been advised (I only found it this morning, trying to make a fix for
    >this).
    > There isn't anything you can do to stop the other problems, except
    >filter
    >139, so...
    >
    >IMHO, we should be able to control whether or not NT accepts null
    >sessions.
    >
    >It is possible they are doing something about this in SP4 - they didn't
    >tell me whether, how or when they planned to fix it.
    >
    >
    >David LeBlanc
    >dleblancat_private
    >
    David LeBlanc
    dleblancat_private
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:51:38 PDT