Re: Possible inside security breach
From: Oli Restorick [MVP] (oli_at_mvps.org)
Date: 08/28/04
- Previous message: Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC: "Re: Possible inside security breach"
- In reply to: Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC: "Re: Possible inside security breach"
- Next in thread: Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC: "Re: Possible inside security breach"
- Reply: Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC: "Re: Possible inside security breach"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:46:17 +0100
Agreed.
In fact, if you have a user account, you wouldn't even need to have your
machine joined to the domain to gain access to data. Connection to the
network is all that's needed and a VPN connection gave him that.
So, as far as I can see, no "hacking" or "security breach" has taken place
here.
Oli
"Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC" <padare@newsguy.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1b9a189b779474f7989a41@msnews.microsoft.com...
> In article <1c8f01c48cde$b45f7680$a501280a@phx.gbl>, in the
> microsoft.public.win2000.security news group, G. Lentz
> <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> says...
>
>> 1) I need to clarify that only an account with
>> Administrative privilages can create new user and
>> computer accounts in an AD domain?
>
> User accounts yes, computer accounts, no. This, to be quite honest, is a
> pretty basic AD concept, and I'd certainly expect any consultant working
> for me (that was doing anything at all with AD) to know this. In AD,
> every domain user account can add 10 workstations to the domain. Since
> the person in question obviously already has a domain user account, it
> is really just a matter of connecting to the domain through the VPN, and
> then adding his computer to the domain.
>
>>
>> 2) Any possible ideas on how the hell they could have
>> done this? Don't need specifics, just could/can it be
>> done? I understand by the user having VPN access to the
>> network he basically had a key so to speak, allowing them
>> to bypass the normal things that discourage external
>> attacks (i.e firewalls).
>
> See above. If this wasn't supposed to be allowed, it certainly wasn't
> the contractor's fault. It was whomever setup the remote access and
> allowed this to happen.
>
>>
>> I am going to try and speak to the client principla that
>> if they circumvented network security, then his network
>> is basically open at this point. Unfortunetely the
>> pricipal is high on this person and their abilities so I
>> may be creating an acrimonius situation by bringin it up.
>> My thinking is I don't want to be blamed for something
>> down the line as I feel I no longer have control over the
>> network. Thanks.
>
> Again, as above. Given what you've told of the story here, you _are_
> responsible for this situation already.
>
> --
> Paul Adare
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
- Previous message: Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC: "Re: Possible inside security breach"
- In reply to: Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC: "Re: Possible inside security breach"
- Next in thread: Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC: "Re: Possible inside security breach"
- Reply: Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC: "Re: Possible inside security breach"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|