Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights
-
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
-
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
-
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
hmm.. interesting.
I have a powershell script that 80% of my users have to use to change printers between locations. I suppose I could compile it into an EXE and whitelist that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
What I'm getting at, is if the device is actually REALLY any bit safer without the user having local administrative access? I mean, if someone external wants in to a device, is the assigned user not having local administrative access making the device any more secure?
The concern isn't necessarily about downloading a piece of malware.
Those two things are one and the same. If someone wants remote access, then getting the end user to accidentally download malware is the number one way to achieve it. You can't separate the two concepts.
And in those cases that's what the AV is designed for, especially Trojans. But that's not my point here, my point is in those cases it's about trickery via social engineering and/or web links to steal credentials to services. Not particularly about the users device.
No, AV is designed for viruses. Trojans bypass AV by their nature.
My point is that trickery IS what not having local admin rights is all about.
I see, and good point. AV in my experience has prevented soo much Trojans though. So I am not sure what you mean that AV doesn't stop Trojan infected software, because I've seen a lot of live logs where it does.
It must stop some, but I pretty much never see if. If an end user downloads something and tries to execute it with local admin rights, it's going to run, AV or not. In the cases where you've seen it stopped by the AV, was it attempted to be run by a local admin?
No, on Windows, most AV / Anti-Malware is real-time monitoring of file changes. I don't remember what it's called but it almost is nonexistent in Linux. As soon as it's downloaded, if it's even allowed to, it's gone. If that fails, then upon clicking on it or browsing the directory it's located in triggers the AV to get rid of it. User admin privileges are irrelevant there.
-
I have not read the whole thread, so I apologize if I missed something. I read through the first ~20 posts and decided to toss my stuff in here.
We currently use a tool called CyberArk for privilege escalation. It requires that an exe be registered with it by an admin, but allows an end user to silently escalate a process that has been so registered. This gives us the ability to remove admin rights from almost everyone (I don't have any), and still allow the function that is needed for business operations. Depending on your scale it might not make financial sense, but it saved my city a large chunk of time and resources.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
Scripts shouldn't run unless they are signed and the cert is allowed. That's how we control that.
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
Scripts shouldn't run unless they are signed and the cert is allowed. That's how we control that.
The problem is... you can't write your own.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
Scripts shouldn't run unless they are signed and the cert is allowed. That's how we control that.
The problem is... you can't write your own.
you mean the end user can't - yeah, that's not a risk in my environment. But I can see how that would be in your MSP.
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
What I'm getting at, is if the device is actually REALLY any bit safer without the user having local administrative access? I mean, if someone external wants in to a device, is the assigned user not having local administrative access making the device any more secure?
The concern isn't necessarily about downloading a piece of malware.
Those two things are one and the same. If someone wants remote access, then getting the end user to accidentally download malware is the number one way to achieve it. You can't separate the two concepts.
And in those cases that's what the AV is designed for, especially Trojans. But that's not my point here, my point is in those cases it's about trickery via social engineering and/or web links to steal credentials to services. Not particularly about the users device.
No, AV is designed for viruses. Trojans bypass AV by their nature.
My point is that trickery IS what not having local admin rights is all about.
I see, and good point. AV in my experience has prevented soo much Trojans though. So I am not sure what you mean that AV doesn't stop Trojan infected software, because I've seen a lot of live logs where it does.
It must stop some, but I pretty much never see if. If an end user downloads something and tries to execute it with local admin rights, it's going to run, AV or not. In the cases where you've seen it stopped by the AV, was it attempted to be run by a local admin?
No, on Windows, most AV / Anti-Malware is real-time monitoring of file changes. I don't remember what it's called but it almost is nonexistent in Linux. As soon as it's downloaded, if it's even allowed to, it's gone. If that fails, then upon clicking on it or browsing the directory it's located in triggers the AV to get rid of it. User admin privileges are irrelevant there.
Amazing how often that stuff gets through. If AV was really effective in that way, ransomware wouldn't have a chance. Granted, nothing stops everything, obviously. But in the real world, I almost never see AV catching much beyond old, low hanging fruit.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
Scripts shouldn't run unless they are signed and the cert is allowed. That's how we control that.
The problem is... you can't write your own.
Maybe I'm missing your point. So they can't run Vscode and write a script? Or notepad?
-
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
hmm.. interesting.
I have a powershell script that 80% of my users have to use to change printers between locations. I suppose I could compile it into an EXE and whitelist that.
You can whitelist anything. Making it an exe is not the issue. It's the users making their own. Automating themselves.
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
Scripts shouldn't run unless they are signed and the cert is allowed. That's how we control that.
The problem is... you can't write your own.
Maybe I'm missing your point. So they can't run Vscode and write a script? Or notepad?
They can't write a script, at all. In any way. If only whitelisted things can run, you can't make any of your own automation.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
Scripts shouldn't run unless they are signed and the cert is allowed. That's how we control that.
The problem is... you can't write your own.
Maybe I'm missing your point. So they can't run Vscode and write a script? Or notepad?
They can't write a script, at all. In any way. If only whitelisted things can run, you can't make any of your own automation.
Write or run?
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
What I'm getting at, is if the device is actually REALLY any bit safer without the user having local administrative access? I mean, if someone external wants in to a device, is the assigned user not having local administrative access making the device any more secure?
The concern isn't necessarily about downloading a piece of malware.
Those two things are one and the same. If someone wants remote access, then getting the end user to accidentally download malware is the number one way to achieve it. You can't separate the two concepts.
And in those cases that's what the AV is designed for, especially Trojans. But that's not my point here, my point is in those cases it's about trickery via social engineering and/or web links to steal credentials to services. Not particularly about the users device.
No, AV is designed for viruses. Trojans bypass AV by their nature.
My point is that trickery IS what not having local admin rights is all about.
I see, and good point. AV in my experience has prevented soo much Trojans though. So I am not sure what you mean that AV doesn't stop Trojan infected software, because I've seen a lot of live logs where it does.
It must stop some, but I pretty much never see if. If an end user downloads something and tries to execute it with local admin rights, it's going to run, AV or not. In the cases where you've seen it stopped by the AV, was it attempted to be run by a local admin?
No, on Windows, most AV / Anti-Malware is real-time monitoring of file changes. I don't remember what it's called but it almost is nonexistent in Linux. As soon as it's downloaded, if it's even allowed to, it's gone. If that fails, then upon clicking on it or browsing the directory it's located in triggers the AV to get rid of it. User admin privileges are irrelevant there.
Heuristic Scanning
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@IRJ said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@scottalanmiller said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter.
Huh? Chrome isn't a thread because of this.... no admin access whatsoever.
This was an example of software that could be run in user space with zero local admin rights - nothing more. The remainder of that post (or a followup one) pointed out that I don't want to see users able able to execute an executable that wasn't installed by an admin - but I'm not sure that's possible, or really reasonable.
Yes, but it's "run in the user space". Everything works that way. Office suites, you name it. Chrome is just a "portable app".
Yeah, I just don't like the idea of portable apps - as an admin, I'd like to prevent them. Because there is no reason in most businesses that a user would need to run a portable app. If you prevent execution from any user rightable space, you can kill so much of this malware.
That's not a good way to think of it. You should never dislike portable apps, all that means is that they don't require admin privs or need to be installed to run. Installing just means putting it into the system database.
Portable apps have loads and loads of reasons to exist. They are more stable, easier to maintain, avoid DLL hell, etc. They don't link to system resources and so are more resilient to all kinds of problems and tend to work across more OS versions.
Portable apps tend to be bloated, that's pretty much their only negative.
Execution allowances is totally different. Not allowing end users to make or acquire their own tools and run with their own privs is very different than disliking the avoidance of system dependencies in an executable.
You CAN get rid of all of those things mentioned in locally install apps as well.
There is only negatives to locally install apps IMO. Some would argue that it is required for speed, but in reality a properly built SaaS app does not have issues.
He's not intending to argue the "locally" part, but the "installed" part. The context was installed vs portable apps, both local in this case.
I guess what I want is a white list of allowed executable - I don't care if they are portable or not, I care that users shouldn't be able to execute them unless allowed by IT.
Right, that makes sense. DLL linking or database inclusion doesn't really. Portable doesn't imply any additional access from the users.
Just be aware that while listing means no OS level scripting from end users, even of their own making. But that's not necessarily bad.
Scripts shouldn't run unless they are signed and the cert is allowed. That's how we control that.
The problem is... you can't write your own.
Maybe I'm missing your point. So they can't run Vscode and write a script? Or notepad?
They can't write a script, at all. In any way. If only whitelisted things can run, you can't make any of your own automation.
Write or run?
Well they can write it, but that's it.
-
What are potential underlying issues and fixes that you all may have ran into, causing the perceived requirement of local admin privileges?
Quick easy example to make the question clear:
Issue:
- A certain app some people use requires local admin privileges to install.
Fix:
- Make the app available to install via the "Company Portal" or other self-service software install portals.
-
Another point:
Timed or temporary local admin privileges? Do you feel that is at all any more or less "secure"?
-
What's the advantage of giving users admin rights?
