본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

hunt-ntlm-info

Inspect NTLM authentication responses from public IIS, SharePoint, and Exchange services to identify exposed internal domains, server names, and timestamps. Assess the disclosure in context and prepare reproducible evidence without completing authentication.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Hunt NTLM/Negotiate information disclosure on internet-reachable IIS/SharePoint/Exchange. Anonymous NTLM Type-2 challenge capture leaks NetBIOS domain, internal DNS forest, computer name, AD timestamp via AV_PAIRS structure. Default Windows-installer hostnames (WIN-XXXXXXXXXXX pattern) signal lazy provisioning. Use when target advertises `WWW-Authenticate: NTLM` or `Negotiate` headers anonymously.

연동 도구SharePoint
설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Checking public services that advertise NTLM authentication
  • Extracting internal domains and server names from responses
  • Assessing the impact of exposed Active Directory structure
  • Preparing reproducible evidence for an information disclosure report

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md16.4 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Crown Jewel Targets

NTLM info disclosure is a Medium-severity finding when chained to context — the leak itself is intentional protocol behavior (RFC-compliant NTLMSSP challenge), but on internet-exposed enterprise infrastructure it provides exact reconnaissance for the next stage of an attack. Highest-value targets:

  • Internet-reachable IIS / SharePoint / Exchange / OWA with dual-auth (Forms + NTLM, or NTLM + Kerberos)
  • Citrix NetScaler / VMware Horizon View internet-facing gateways with NTLM-backed AD auth
  • Lync / Skype for Business / Teams On-Prem edge servers
  • WSUS / Windows Update Services with NTLM-protected admin paths
  • CIFS-style fileshare proxies (HCL Sametime, IBM Notes Domino) that proxy NTLM
  • Legacy SharePoint farms that left NTLM enabled on the public-zone IIS binding

What makes this pay:

  • Internal AD domain disclosure (parent-forest mapping, e.g. customer.parent-corp.example → tenant inside corporate-AD tree)
  • Default-Windows-hostname disclosure (WIN-XXXXXXXXXXX pattern signals rushed provisioning → likely default service-account passwords)
  • Timestamp leak (used in NTLMv2 hash cracking acceleration)
  • Direct attack-map enrichment for credential spraying combined with hunt-auth-bypass Legacy-Protocol Matrix

Attack Surface Signals

Response headers signaling NTLM availability:

WWW-Authenticate: NTLM
WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate
WWW-Authenticate: NTLM, Negotiate
WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate, NTLM

URL patterns where NTLM is commonly exposed:

/_api/web/CurrentUser                  (SharePoint REST)
/_vti_bin/*.asmx                       (SharePoint legacy SOAP)
/EWS/Exchange.asmx                     (Exchange Web Services)
/Autodiscover/Autodiscover.xml         (Exchange autodiscover)
/owa/                                  (Outlook Web App)
/Microsoft-Server-ActiveSync           (ActiveSync)
/PowerShell                            (Exchange Mgmt Shell over HTTPS)
/api/v3/                               (TeamCity, Atlassian)
/wsus/                                 (Windows Server Update Services)
/manager/html                          (some Tomcat behind IIS)
/iisstart.htm                          (default IIS, sometimes reveals NTLM upstream)

Tech-stack signals:

  • IIS on the public internet (almost always NTLM-capable, even if Forms is the front)
  • SharePoint Web Front End (almost always dual-auth Forms + NTLM)
  • Exchange edge transport
  • Server header Microsoft-HTTPAPI/2.0, Microsoft-IIS/*, IIS/*

Step-by-Step Hunting Methodology

  1. Probe every anonymous endpoint for WWW-Authenticate: NTLM. Send a vanilla GET and inspect response headers. If NTLM is offered, proceed.

  2. Send a valid NTLMSSP Type-1 message anonymously. The Type-1 base64 below requests NetBIOS-domain and Workstation info from the server:

    Authorization: NTLM TlRMTVNTUAABAAAAB4IIogAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGAbEdAAAADw==
    

    This is the standard test Type-1 with negotiate flags NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_UNICODE | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_OEM | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NTLM | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_ALWAYS_SIGN | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_KEY_EXCH | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_56 | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_128 | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_TARGET_INFO. The OS Version field (06 01 B1 1D 00 00 00 0F) is Windows 7 build 7601 — accepted by virtually every NTLM responder.

  3. Use a keep-alive raw socket, not Python requests / curl one-shot. Most HTTP libraries close the connection between the Type-1 send and Type-2 reception. Use one of:

    • Burp Repeater with Connection: keep-alive set explicitly
    • Burp mcp__burp__send_http1_request (handles keep-alive natively)
    • Python raw socket + ssl.wrap_socket (see Payload section)
  4. Parse the Type-2 challenge from the WWW-Authenticate: NTLM <base64> response header. Base64-decode the value. The structure is NTLMSSP per MS-NLMP:

    • Bytes 0-7: literal NTLMSSP\0
    • Bytes 8-11: MessageType = \x02\x00\x00\x00
    • Bytes 12-19: TargetName SecurityBuffer (len, alloc, offset)
    • Bytes 20-23: NegotiateFlags
    • Bytes 24-31: Server Challenge (8 bytes — useful for offline cracking)
    • Bytes 40-47: TargetInfo SecurityBuffer (len, alloc, offset)
    • TargetInfo body: AV_PAIRS array of (AvId u16, AvLen u16, Value)
  5. Decode the AV_PAIRS. The AvIds you care about:

    • 1 = NetBIOS Computer Name
    • 2 = NetBIOS Domain Name
    • 3 = DNS Computer Name (FQDN of the responding server)
    • 4 = DNS Domain Name (the AD domain)
    • 5 = DNS Tree Name (the AD forest root)
    • 7 = Timestamp (FILETIME, useful for NTLMv2 hash relay / cracking)
    • 9 = Target Name (in newer NTLMSSP)
  6. Map findings to severity tier:

    • Internet-exposed + default WIN-XXXXXXXXXXX hostname + corporate-AD-tree disclosure → Medium
    • Internet-exposed + named-server hostname (SPWEB01.corp.example) + corporate-AD-tree → Low-Medium
    • Intranet-only + any disclosure → Informational
    • Combine with hunt-auth-bypass Legacy-Protocol Matrix findings on the same host → upgrade the auth-bypass finding's severity since the attacker has UPN/SAM format ready
  7. Check the timestamp. If AV[7] returns a current FILETIME within ~5s of Date: header, the system clock is synced — useful intel for Kerberos golden-ticket forging (out of bug-bounty scope but red-team relevant).

  8. Cross-reference with subdomain enum. The DNS Tree name often reveals the parent forest — e.g. customer.parent-corp.example reveals the customer is a sub-domain INSIDE corporate-parent AD, not a separate tenant. This is a privacy / topology-disclosure escalation that programs sometimes accept as Medium.


Payload & Detection Patterns

Generic NTLM Type-1 anonymous probe (curl + raw socket fallback):

# Most one-shot curl runs DON'T return Type-2 because the connection closes.
# Use this as a quick probe to confirm NTLM is offered:
curl -sk -I -H "Authorization: NTLM TlRMTVNTUAABAAAAB4IIogAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGAbEdAAAADw==" \
  "https://target.example/_api/web/CurrentUser" 2>&1 | grep -i "WWW-Authenticate"

Burp send_http1_request (recommended for full Type-2 capture):

GET /_api/web/CurrentUser HTTP/1.1
Host: target.example
Authorization: NTLM TlRMTVNTUAABAAAAB4IIogAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGAbEdAAAADw==
Connection: keep-alive
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0

Python raw socket + AV_PAIR decoder:

import socket, ssl, base64, struct, re
from datetime import datetime, timezone

HOST = "target.example"
ctx = ssl.create_default_context()
ctx.check_hostname = False
ctx.verify_mode = ssl.CERT_NONE

s = ctx.wrap_socket(socket.create_connection((HOST, 443)), server_hostname=HOST)
s.sendall(
    f"GET /_api/web/CurrentUser HTTP/1.1\r\n"
    f"Host: {HOST}\r\n"
    "Authorization: NTLM TlRMTVNTUAABAAAAB4IIogAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGAbEdAAAADw==\r\n"
    "User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0\r\nConnection: keep-alive\r\n\r\n".encode()
)
data = b""
while True:
    chunk = s.recv(8192)
    if not chunk: break
    data += chunk
    if b"\r\n\r\n" in data: break

m = re.search(rb"WWW-Authenticate:\s*NTLM\s+([A-Za-z0-9+/=]{20,})", data, re.I)
if m:
    b = base64.b64decode(m.group(1).decode("ascii"))
    assert b[:8] == b"NTLMSSP\x00"
    tn_len, _, tn_off = struct.unpack_from('<HHI', b, 12)
    ti_len, _, ti_off = struct.unpack_from('<HHI', b, 40)
    print(f"TargetName: {b[tn_off:tn_off+tn_len].decode('utf-16-le', errors='ignore')!r}")
    av_types = {1:'NetBIOS Computer Name', 2:'NetBIOS Domain Name',
                3:'DNS Computer Name', 4:'DNS Domain Name',
                5:'DNS Tree Name', 7:'Timestamp', 9:'Target Name'}
    i = 0
    ti = b[ti_off:ti_off+ti_len]
    while i < len(ti):
        av_id, av_len = struct.unpack_from('<HH', ti, i)
        if av_id == 0: break
        val = ti[i+4:i+4+av_len]
        if av_id == 7:
            ts = struct.unpack('<Q', val[:8])[0]
            secs = (ts - 116444736000000000) / 10000000
            vs = datetime.fromtimestamp(secs, tz=timezone.utc).isoformat()
        else:
            vs = val.decode('utf-16-le', errors='ignore')
        print(f"  AV[{av_id}] {av_types.get(av_id, '?'):28s}: {vs!r}")
        i += 4 + av_len

Burp Collaborator NOT needed for this finding class — the data leak is in the synchronous response, not via OOB.


Common Root Causes

  1. Dual-auth IIS bindings on the public zone. Administrators leave NTLM enabled on the public-facing IIS site even when Forms auth is the intended entry point. Internal users get SSO; external attackers get the AD topology leak.

  2. Default IIS Application Pool identity left as ApplicationPoolIdentity. Combined with default hostname, signals provisioning never went past first-boot.

  3. Server never renamed from Windows-installer-generated hostname. Microsoft's default WIN-XXXXXXXXXXX 11-character pattern is the immediate tell. Sometimes also WORKGROUP\WIN-... in older boxes.

  4. Sub-domain joined to corporate forest without zone-isolation. European-integrator case: a a European importer's SharePoint test environment is a child domain inside a corporate global AD, disclosed via NTLM DNS Tree Name. The customer probably intends customer.parent-corp.example to be operationally separate but the NTLM Type-2 reveals the forest membership to anyone who probes.

  5. IIS Extended Protection NOT enabled. When <system.webServer><security><authentication><windowsAuthentication extendedProtection> is None (the default), the NTLM challenge is sent to any anonymous client. When set to Required, NTLM is restricted to authenticated callers — and the AV-pair leak is mitigated.

  6. No WindowsAuthentication removed from applicationHost.config for internet-exposed sites. SharePoint Central Admin sometimes leaves this enabled even when SP zone configuration only enables Forms.


Bypass Techniques

This skill describes a disclosure leak, not an authentication bypass. The "bypass" question is: how do defenders block this AV-pair leak while still allowing legitimate NTLM auth?

DefenseEffectiveness
Disable NTLM on the public IIS binding entirely (Forms-only)Best — eliminates the surface
IIS Extended Protection = RequiredRestricts NTLM challenge to authenticated callers; AV-pair leak mitigated
Reverse-proxy strip WWW-Authenticate from anonymous responsesSometimes works but breaks legitimate clients
Rate-limit the Type-1 → Type-2 endpointDoesn't prevent disclosure, only slows enumeration
Rename the Windows host from WIN-XXXXXXXXXXXRemoves the "lazy provisioning" tell; doesn't stop the leak
Move the SP/Exchange farm to a child AD with no cross-trust to corporateMitigates the forest disclosure; doesn't stop the leak

For the attacker: there's no "bypass" needed — the leak is the finding.


Gate 0 Validation

Before writing the report, confirm:

  1. What can the attacker do RIGHT NOW with this disclosure?

    • Internet-exposed + default hostname + corporate forest disclosed → Medium: attacker has UPN format for hunt-auth-bypass matrix probes, plus knows server has likely-default service accounts.
    • Intranet-only or only NetBIOS name → Informational.
  2. Does the program accept information-disclosure findings without a chained impact?

    • Many programs (Microsoft, large enterprise VDPs) DO accept this when the leaked info includes internal AD topology.
    • Many programs (Shopify, GitHub) reject info disclosure without a chained impact.
    • Read the program scope before submitting; if borderline, chain with a Tier-A finding from hunt-auth-bypass.
  3. Can you reproduce in <5 minutes from a fresh shell?

    • The Python snippet above is the canonical reproduction. Include it verbatim in the report.

Real Impact Examples

Scenario A — Enterprise SharePoint inside parent corporate AD

Target: https://target-portal.example/ — a enterprise dealer portal (test mirror) operated by a system integrator.

Sending the anonymous Type-1 message to /_api/web/CurrentUser returned a Type-2 challenge whose AV_PAIRS decoded to:

NetBIOS Domain Name:    <CustomerName>
NetBIOS Computer Name:  WIN-XXXXXXXXXXX
DNS Domain Name:        customer.parent-corp.example
DNS Computer Name:      WIN-XXXXXXXXXXX.customer.parent-corp.example
DNS Tree Name:          customer.parent-corp.example
Timestamp:              2026-05-13T15:55:37.922Z

Three escalation paths:

  1. Default Windows-installer hostname (WIN-XXXXXXXXXXX) — server was never renamed after OS install; strong signal of lazy provisioning. Likely default service-account passwords on the SQL backend, default WSUS config, etc.
  2. Sub-domain inside corporate-parent AD (customer.parent-corp.example) — the customer is a child domain inside <ParentCorp>'s global Active Directory. A compromise of this test farm has potential cross-trust to corporate-parent.
  3. UPN format known — combined with hunt-auth-bypass's discovery of an anonymous brute-force endpoint on /_vti_bin/Authentication.asmx, the attacker has both the credential format (firstname.lastname@customer.parent-corp.example or <CustomerName>\firstname.lastname) and the unlimited submission endpoint.

Reported severity: Medium, with a note that the chain with the Authentication.asmx anonymous brute-force makes the combined attack Critical.

Scenario B — Exchange edge with NTLM-protected EWS

Target: https://mail.example.com/EWS/Exchange.asmx. Type-1 probe returns Type-2 with DNS Tree Name corp.example.com and DNS Computer Name MAIL01.corp.example.com. Confirms the Exchange edge is domain-joined to corporate AD (rather than running in a DMZ-isolated AD). For an attacker with the matching hunt-mfa-bypass / hunt-auth-bypass chain, the leaked UPN format and server-name format accelerate credential spraying by removing the recon step. Reported severity: Low-Medium depending on program.

Scenario C — Intranet-only intentional leak (not a finding)

Target: https://intranet.corp.example (clearly internal, behind VPN). Type-1 returns full AV-pair set. Not reportable — this is intended NTLM behavior on intranet, and the disclosure is to authenticated VPN users who already see the same data via nltest /dsgetdc:corp.example.com. Recognize and drop.


Related Skills & Chains

  • hunt-sharepoint — SharePoint farms emit anonymous Type-2 challenges on /_vti_bin/ by default; this is one of the most reliable ways to get internal AD topology. Chain primitive: SharePoint discovered → NTLM Type-2 capture on /_vti_bin/Lists.asmx → hunt-ntlm-info AV_PAIR decode → internal forest name → m365-entra-attack ROPC spray on Entra tenant tied to that forest.
  • m365-entra-attack — Leaked NetBIOS domain + UPN suffix is the missing piece for a credible password spray. Chain primitive: NTLM Type-2 yields corp.example.com DNS tree → cross-reference Entra tenant via https://login.microsoftonline.com/corp.example.com/.well-known/openid-configuration → m365-entra-attack AADSTS error-differential username enumeration on resolved tenant.
  • hunt-aspnet — IIS sites running ASP.NET frequently expose NTLM on management paths. Chain primitive: NTLM Type-2 on /owa/, /ecp/, /rpc/, /aspnet_client/ → confirm IIS + ASP.NET version → hunt-aspnet ViewState / .axd enumeration on same host.
  • offensive-osint — The hostname pattern WIN-XXXXXXXXXXX signals lazy provisioning and predicts other weak hygiene. Chain primitive: NTLM Type-2 returns default-installer hostname → flag as low-maturity environment → offensive-osint deep recon (cert transparency, GitHub leakage, breach corpus correlation) is high-yield on this org.
  • triage-validation — Most NTLM info-disclosure findings die at the 7-Question Gate on "is this exploitable" — pure topology disclosure is Low/Informational. Chain primitive: pull every NTLM-info finding through triage-validation BEFORE writing it up; only report if (a) leaks UPN format that accelerates spray, or (b) leaks production hostname mapping (redteam-report-template for the chain-narrative).

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Inspect Android apps for embedded credentials, internal API addresses, and components exposed to other apps. The skill guides APK acquisition, code inspection, and runtime traffic analysis to support a mobile security assessment.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Inventory Android apps included in a security assessment
  • Check APKs for embedded credentials and internal API addresses
  • Review components that other apps can invoke
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.3천2026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Guide bug bounty work from asset discovery to validation and reporting, while resolving local locations of security tools, wordlists, and cloned projects. It covers web and AI security testing with an emphasis on demonstrated impact.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Locate installed security tools and wordlists
  • Plan reconnaissance within a program's scope
  • Investigate related weaknesses and their combined impact
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.3천2026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Organize a bug bounty investigation from reconnaissance through reporting. The skill helps choose a focused objective, identify the current phase, select relevant techniques and tools, and distinguish reproducible security impact from misleading test results.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Setting objectives at the start of an investigation
  • Choosing the next step when testing stalls
  • Replanning after switching targets
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.3천2026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Guide bug bounty work from checking authorized scope and discovering assets to testing web and AI features. Validate practical impact, investigate related weaknesses, and organize reproducible evidence into a vulnerability report.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Planning research for a new bug bounty target
  • Reviewing source code for security weaknesses
  • Testing chatbot and AI feature security
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.3천2026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Prepare Bugcrowd submissions with accurate vulnerability categories, evidence-based severity requests, and explanations of program scope. Structure references between related reports, document QA testing conditions, and draft responses when a finding is downgraded or considered out of scope.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Choose a suitable Bugcrowd vulnerability category
  • Explain a severity request using demonstrated impact
  • Respond to out-of-scope decisions
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.3천2026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Assess what discovered cloud credentials allow across AWS, Azure, GCP, and Kubernetes. The skill guides identity checks, permission review, and paths to higher privileges, then helps document impact, activity, and cleanup within the engagement's agreed scope.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Assess permissions granted by discovered cloud credentials
  • Review role trust and access across cloud accounts
  • Check permissions assigned to anonymous Cognito identities
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.3천2026년 10월 22일 업데이트

elementalsouls의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고