Re: Query regarding S4U2Self protocol extension

Isaac Boukris <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.encryption.kerberos.general
Message-ID <CAC-fF8TY=-5q1V8Vn2XLzqqEw8qD4fC1eVDy7_pjvGyTgG-nFg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:17 PM Isaac Boukris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:17 PM Greg Hudson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/23/21 4:38 PM, Vipul Mehta wrote:
> > > I did some testing with Windows KDC and it will set forwardable flag in
> > > S4U2Self service ticket in either of the following cases:
> > >
> > > 1) TrustedToAuthForDelegation is set to true in Service A account.
> > >
> > > 2) Service A TGT used in S4U2Self has forwardable flag set and
> > > msDS-AllowedToDelegateTo list is empty on Service A account.
> > > I am not able to understand why msDS-AllowedToDelegateTo needs to be empty
> > > in the 2nd case.
> > >
> > > Is the behavior of MIT KDC the same as Windows KDC ?
> >
> > We have an analog of the TrustedToAuthForDelegation flag, called
> > ok_to_auth_as_delegate.  We don't check for an empty
> > allowed-to-delegate-to list.
> ...
> > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/managing-deployment-of-rbcd-protected-user-changes-for-cve-2020-16996-9a59a49f-20b9-a292-f205-da9da0ff24d3
>
> Now that I read this again, and read again the "Additional
> considerations" section in that link, I think what might happened with
> this change is that now RBCD requires the forwardable flag but any
> service with an empty msDS-AllowedToDelegateTo to list, as Vipul
> remarked, gets treated as TrustedToAuthForDelegation and gets the flag
> (presumably, unless the client is in the protected-users group or has
> the not-delegated flag).
>
> I'll run some tests and check it with dochelp.

Yes, now any service is treated as TrustedToAuthForDelegation unless
it has a none-empty msDS-AllowedToDelegateTo list, on the other hand
with
NonForwardableDelegation set to enabled RBCD is no longer allowed with
non-forwardable tickets (this would be the default soon, or it is
already).

I guess that cross-realm would also be required to be forwardable,
which means the other realm is trusted for that, I'll try to test it.
________________________________________________
Kerberos mailing list           [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.