Advisories 1-2: Azure AD and Common WS-Trust MFA Bypass explained

If there is single post I’ve been delaying for a good while, then it’s gotta be this one. This blog details a common oversight in MFA enforcement regarding federation implementations where MFA is invoked and required in the 3rd party IDP only. This oversight become effective when several by- design features, and implementation decisions align in ”wrong” way

Well how actionable it is? I’ve been exploiting this oversight in Red Teaming assignments, so in my experience its been really popular in deployments where the MFA is not checked on cloud side.

The reason of the delay is advisory 1. I’ve been discussing the ramifications with a major vendor providing Federation solutions about mitigating the configuration risks with WS-Trust when used in conjunction with Azure AD

Advisory 1 is related to how WS-Trust protocol is used in conjunction with Azure AD where clear text username and password are forwarded in TLS protected transport using the active endpoints to provide access for so-called non modern clients (Rich /Active endpoint consuming clients)

The scope is protocol implementation related, not vendor related! List of third 3rd party vendors providing WS-Federation/Trust support for Azure AD is long (some 15 last time I checked), so I am not highlighting any vendors here. I am assuming this affects most of the vendors implementing the WS-Trust with Azure AD without knowledge of the Azure AD OAuth2 Grant Types. Obviously I can’t say anything on any of the vendors behalf.

Microsoft’s AD FS can be also considered applicable in this context. Especially advisory 2

Advisory 2 is already documented, but not well communicated, and the existing documentation is AD FS specific. How is advisory 2 related to advisory 1? The existence of advisory 2 makes advisory 1 possible in the described scope.

Scope

Scope of this advisory are primarily customers who use WS /* -Protocols for federated domains in Azure AD, and utilize access policies to enforce and bypass MFA only in the IDP side. Not checking the status of MFA in Conditional Access, or using the -SupportsMFA option for the Microsoft MFA enabled users.

Its worth noting, that the attack can also pierce cloud MFA requirement if EAS clients can generate known bypass claims. There are unfortunately guides on web that advise doing this. In the latter scenario the attack penetrates two MFA layers, (Becomes even worse)

I won’t be providing any PoC’s, since all of the below advisories rely on by-design implementation, and can be replicated in few minutes, given you have understanding of both sides of the equation (Azure AD and WS-protocols)

Advisory 1 – Pivoting from legacy to modern auth

Background

UserName endpoints on WS-Trust are usually associated with legacy clients, thus they are often excluded from MFA. These endpoints are usually associated with legacy clients requesting access to Azure AD relying Party (Office 365 services often) – This is only true by association, as WS-Specification doesn’t define any difference between the so-called modern and legacy clients, the concept of difference only exists within Azure AD /Office 365 context, which the federation service is not aware of.

Accessing ”modern” API’s unprotected by the IDP

SAML assertion can extracted from the IDP, if the IDP is thinking it’s ActiveSync client. Once the token is received in response, it is then converted to OAuth2 Access Token with “saml1_1-bearer” OAuth2 Grant. This can be done by using many of the existing public clients.

Effectively the SAML token destined to legacy endpoint in Azure AD is converted to “Modern Auth” OAuth2 Access Token, and not being just used for legacy protocols anymore.

Root of this problem is related to the fact, that for SAML response from WS-Trust endpoint there is no ”validFor” context, which would dictate, that this request is valid for only let’s say https://graph.microsoft.com – not entire Azure AD Federation (Conditional Access solves this issue, as it binds access in cloud to different API’s)

In the picture: MFA is enabled for browser clients, and UserNameEndpoint is only allowed for ActiveSync clients without MFA /There lies the problem…

But wait, I have disabled legacy protocols in Office 365?

Disabling legacy protocols doesn’t help in this case, as the attacker is only consuming “modern API’s” (Microsoft OAuth2 parlance).

Attack in practice – On-prem MFA bypass

Example: The deployment only allows native ActiveSync to access WS-Trust’s Username bindings without MFA

What attacker does: Attacker uses ‘X-MS-Application’ header to spoof client to fetch SAML token using WS-Trust’s ’UserNameWSTrustBinding’.

The attacker then exchanges the SAML token in Azure AD to access the OAuth2 SPN (Audience). The exchange of the token is possible due to explicit support of “saml1_1-bearer” oAuth2 Grant Type, which cant be disabled on any of the ServicePrincipals in AzureAD

Documentation regarding the flow type

Link Microsoft identity platform and OAuth 2.0 SAML bearer assertion flow

Advisory 2 – Client Header Based Access Policies (Applies to WS-Federate as well)

This advisory is well documented, and is here only as reminder because it allows the first advisory to exist.

Don’t use user spoof-able headers as an basis for access policies at IDP’s controlling access to Azure AD.

Access Policies

Some vendors might implement additional checks here, but the protocol itself doesn’t dictate those to be done. This is basically where different products provide access policies to be enforced claims pipeline, to produce authorization result.

AD FS roles
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-fs/technical-reference/the-role-of-the-claims-pipeline

Business policy claims?

Some of the claims presented in the following category should be only implemented to support business policies, not security policies, as advised in the Microsoft’s article

Client Spoof-able headers (Examples from AD FS)

Multiple claims exist which clients can modify, or set. Below are the most common ones. Read the article if you’re curious to see the list of claims in AD FS

  • X-MS-FORWARDED-CLIENT-IP
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-fs/operations/access-control-policies-w2k12#x-ms-forwarded-client-ip
  • X-MS-CLIENT-APPLICATION
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-fs/operations/access-control-policies-w2k12#x-ms-client-application
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-fs/operations/access-control-policies-w2k12#scenario3

The documentation exist for AD FS 2012 R2, but it’s applicable to similar implementations including subsequent AD FS versions at least as up to 2016. Be sure to read the article as it lists very clear reasons,

Mitigations

  • a. Use Conditional Access to check whether MFA was actually performed at the 3rd party IDP for the requested API, or if there is valid reason to explicitly bypass the API
  • b. If you don’t have Conditional Access, don’t allow UserNameMixed to be used with spoof-able headers. Basically you wouldn’t allow native clients anymore for ActiveSync, as there isn’t safe header available for this decision to be made in the authorization pipeline

About spoof-able headers

  • X-MS-ADFS-Proxy-Client-IP seems to be based on the actual client IP with WAP, and should be more reliable, than the client writable header X-MS-FORWARDED-CLIENT-IP, which is advised to be used in many scenarios.
  • X-MS-FORWARDED-CLIENT-IP is often advised to be used in many guides because MS Exchange Online Connections pass multiple IP’s in headers, and thus the actual client IP hitting ADFS includes both Exchange and the Client IP’s in the header
    • as the documentation says, is best effort style header, and shouldn’t be used outside of business logic use scenarios
  • X-MS-CLIENT-APPLICATION here isn’t reliable way to inspect ActiveSync header for a legitimate client at the IDP’s side, The only way to allow it without MFA is Conditional Access

Also its worth noting that Basic Auth for Exchange, which is key reason why MFA bypasses on the WS-Trust endpoint are still used is going to be deprecated very soon

Azure AD – Add Custom claims for WS-Federation applications

Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided “AS IS” with no warranties and confers no rights.

Most guides using Azure AD as IDP focus at OAuth and OAuth2/w OIDC flows for API access, and for enterprise SSO SAML. Not much endorsement for WS-Federation, and that’s understandable because the two previous options cover pretty much every scenario you would ideally have. But what if you have a app that is using explicitly WS-Federation? For example Microsoft OWIN based application?

There aren’t good support articles on using WS-Federation and custom claims in Azure AD when Azure AD is IDP, but WS-Federation is definitely supported when Azure AD is acting as IDP .

The only article I found covering custom claims and mentioning WS-Federation was the one I’ve used to write my previous article on preview of custom claims (how to get sAMAccountName into JWT tokens)

Since Azure AD App’s are largely protocol agnostic I figured that maybe the claims mappings are somewhat ambiguous also, just as long you understand how custom claims, and federations work

Guide to testing

The order here is important. While SAML endpoint is enabled by default in any Azure AD App, any specific settings, especially one’s for configuring Service Provider aren’t directly available in the ”non-SAML” app you create – Unless you play around with the App Registration Manifest. But there are other features that require spawning app initially as SAML app (For example using custom token sign-in cert, using token encryption and so on)

  • Configure new SAML federation at Azure AD
  • Add the custom claims for the federation
  • Set Single-Sign On mode to disabled
    • If you’re planning to use this in production, you have get the Metadata from SAML federation settings, I will do some further investigation later to update this blog
  • For metadata replace the metadata URL with tenant and AppID details

Test the federation.

I have handy NodeJS Express App I use pretty much for testing and debugging any authorization related stuff, with very simple purpose of catching different inbound calls.

About the code… The code itself is epitome of laziness, so I am too embarrassed to share it :)…

  • Invoke the call
    • Use AppID or any Identifier you’ve defined in the manifest
    • If you have multiple reply URL’s define the ’wreply’ param
https://login.microsoftonline.com/common/wsfed?
 wtrealm=1de8c976-fe00-4008-91d5-e5a2381d40a6
 &wctx=WSfedState
 &wa=wsignin1.0
  • Confirm the emitted claims
    • In this particular case its user.displayname +(join) user.dnsdomain
Typical WS-Federation body

There are many questions and details that I could add here, but since I am just fooling around with a feature, I am not devoting any more time until there is actual production need for such scenario.

Identity and Access in Security Center?

For those who are missing the once great Identity and Access solution in ASC, worry no more – It’s available as an Sentinel dashboard, which you can simply add from the dashboards (Given that you’re collecting the data)

HoneyPot and Sentinel is a nice combination
Dashboards in Sentinel
KB https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/security-center/security-center-features-retirement-july2019#menu_classicidentity 
Whats coming next? https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/app/usage-workbooks 

Deploy: Native Exchange ActiveSync with Conditional Access and Intune while blocking legacy auth?

I’ve seen many companies struggle with EAS (Exchange ActiveSync) configuration, in relation how to adapt strong authentication and trusted devices approach for native mail clients. Thus I’d like to present three possible scenarios for EAS handling with Conditional Access/Intune mostly

Update: Microsoft will be initially deprecating basic auth for EAS, which some of the options presented below do rely

The options

  1. Allow EAS go unchecked (not recommended)
  2. Allow compliant (enrolled) native clients
  3. Use only Outlook App / Don’t allow native clients (Using Approved Client App option in Conditional Access)
  4. Mix of 2 and 3 with different policies
  • Option 1. Not recommended (even without Intune)
  • Option 2. Recommend to most who are unsure whether they can transition from Native mail clients to using Outlook app (Option 3), which gives the best control, if you’re considering having Outlook as managed application
  • Its also worth mentioning, that IOS native mail client has supported modern authentication for a good while. Meaning, that If it’s you’re only client for Native Mail, you don’t need necessarily a separate policies for EAS
  • For org’s without Conditional Access and Intune, there is less flexible, but similar option available to scenario 2 – Which I’ve addressed in another blog post (So no reason really for option 1

Before configuration guide, lets address these two strange sentences

  • ”Apply only to supported platforms”
  • ”Exchange ActiveSync currently does not support all the other conditions”

”Apply only to supported platforms”

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/intune/conditional-access-intune-reassign

The heading ”Apply only to supported platforms” is super confusing. From a security point of view I’d think that unsupported platforms would go past Conditional Access? (as they aren’t other clients, which we handle in another block policy)

It boils down to this:

”if you have chosen to block clients that aren’t supported by Intune, use the Apply policy only to supported platforms option”


See, when the device isn’t supported by Intune (thus unable to ever get the Compliant status for ActiveSync access) it won’t get past Conditional Access.


Exchange ActiveSync currently does not support all the other conditions

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/conditional-access/conditions#exchange-activesync-clients

The supported conditions for Native Mail Apps Are

  • In Users / Groups selection of specific users/groups, or all users (include and exclude both seem to apply)
  • In Cloud Apps only Exchange Online is selected
  • In Conditions: Apply only to supported platforms
  • In Conditions – Client Apps only ActiveSync is selected (and in scope of this blog, and other recommendations it’s recommended to narrow it down to ’Apply policy only to supported platforms’
  • In Access Controls only ’ Require device to be marked as compliant’ is the only supported condition

You may have varying mileage with other conditions, but I’d recommend sticking with recommendations in MS articles


Policy examples

  • Exclude Exchange Online from other policies before configuring specific policies for it:
  • In my example I haven’t specified mobile platform specific policies for ActiveSync, since the configuration options in ActiveSync are very limited. I don’t see thus much (or any value) of separating for example IOS and Android into their respective policies, unless you wan’t to define Block Policy for mobile platform (in this case bare in mind, that the platform selection is based often on User-Agents, meaning that if you really need to block mobile platform, ensure that the allowed mobile platforms are narrowed down also in protocol, apps and in Intune policies
  • There is many ways to deal with service accounts with the following policies. I will be providing another post on how to deal with service accounts in Conditional Access, to keep this post tidy 🙂
    • Any way as a single mention is that, when you want to bypass certain account or action remember to narrow the bypass conditions so that for example the IP based bypass for a single service account is possible only for one application (meaning that Service account even in ”trusted location” won’t have any more access than the single app – unless specified otherwise.

EXO (Modern auth and browser clients)

EXO – Activesync (Compliant only)

General – Block ’Other Clients’

Note! you could possibly also use one of the built in baseline rules, as it doesn’t block EAS. I am opting for non-baseline policy because I may want to exclude some directory roles (service accounts) to another policy. The Policy also lists that it blocks the Native Android Mail Client, which I supported is still to some extent supported platform, and I want to maintain it in separate policy

Expected behaviour

  1. Newly added devices will be quarantined in EXO
  2. Client will receive mail prompting to enroll the company portal app
  3. After enrollment phone will stay in the quarantine, while the compliance information is propagating
  4. On success
    1. CA device info will display ”join type = Azure AD Registered”
    2. CA Policy for ’require compliant device’ result = Success
    3. Exchange display DeviceAccessState = Allowed, DeviceAccessStateReason = ExternallyManaged

Below is short the process shortly

There is also a baseline policy, which is recommended unless you need more exclude conditions (such as native Android Mail Clients)

Intune Configuration

Users devices show as compliant in both Azure AD, and Intune
’Compliant status’ in Azure AD
Ensure that all used platforms have a compliance policy
Ensure devices with no compliance policy assigned are handled as ’Not Compliant’

Keywords for troubleshooting

EXO powershell Module

”DeviceAccessState : Quarantined”
”DeviceAccessStateReason : ExternalEnrollment”

During the enrollment the devices will stay in quarantine, until the enrollment is complete (device gets registered ID in AAD, and Azure AD displays Success for Conditional Access 

Once successful the states and reasons should be as following

”DeviceAccesState : Allowed”
”DeviceAccessStateReason : ExternallyManaged”


Company Portal App Android

”Company Access Setup is Incomplete”

Email account Activation”

with Android devices even after successful enrollment and Conditional Access working as supposed (and with DeviceAccessState in EXO) – I suppose this is some bug for the enrollment not being able to display the status correctly (tested on Android 7xx and 8xx)


References

LINK to MS article regarding blocking legacy auth

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/intune/conditional-access-intune-reassign

Azure AD Directories and B2B user decision matrix – One-slider

Click for larger version

Ever pondered on how to decide about B2B Account Types? One thing is for sure, If you’re enterprise org, you’re better of having multiple partner account types, because it’s not one size fits all type scenario

  • The matrix makes clear separation between collaboration only, and administrative tasks performing partners
    • This is based on multiple recommendations, but is based mostly on the following Azure Subscription recommendation from Azure Secure DevOps Kit. (Obviously if the account is also homed in Azure AD and you’ve setup B2B conditional access policy for guests, you might consider yourself covered to some extent…)
link
  • Where authentication happens is important part on the picture, and is the main deciding factor on users home directory

Other considerations

  • Licensing is separate discussion… Anyway key takeaway is, that the 1:5 ratio licensing works in the background = If you assign license to guest user its one license gone, and doesn’t benefit from the B2B-Licensing
  • The picture doesn’t consider SSO between the host tenant and its IDP, as it basically wouldn’t add anything to the picture (unless you’d ”multiplex” multiple claims provider against single AD FS, and then via claims pipeline transformations emit claims for the guest type users in you’re tenant)
  • More detailed explanation of all the scenarios (minus the flowchart) can be found here Properties of an Azure Active Directory B2B collaboration user

Please don’t hesitate to comment or send feedback, if you notice any errors or wrong assumptions in the flowchart

”MOAR STUFF”

If you want to check B2B deep diver on user types and authn/authz, then check: https://securecloud.blog/2019/05/06/deep-diver-azure-ad-b2b/

Click for bigger picture