Adcs Exposure Audit

AD CS exposure audit

AD CS issues are combinations. A broad enrollment ACL alone may be intended; the same ACL combined with an authentication purpose, requester-controlled identity, and weak issuance controls becomes an escalation surface. Record facts separately and derive the combinations.

When to Use

• An authorized identity security review when assessing AD CS, certificate templates, enterprise CAs, or Certipy-style inventory without exercising an attack path.
• Use only within explicit authorization and the stated rules of engagement.

When NOT to Use

• Do not treat this skill as permission to access, test, or change a target.
• Do not convert missing evidence into a clean result or a stronger claim.

Workflow

1. Confirm the authorized domains, CAs, directory objects, and read-only collection actions. Do not request a certificate, relay authentication, coerce authentication, modify an object, or attempt certificate logon unless those actions are separately authorized.
2. Inventory every enterprise CA and every template it publishes. Record CA flags, SID-extension policy, patch state, enrollment interfaces, administrative rights, HSM signing controls, and enrollment-agent restrictions.
3. Record template publication, schema version, effective enrollment principals, subject-supply behavior, EKUs or application policies, approval, authorized signatures, SID-extension behavior, and issuance policy OIDs. For templates requiring authorized signatures, record the required registration-authority application policies.
4. Record effective ACLs on templates, CA configuration, NTAuthCertificates, enrollment services, CA computer objects, and OID objects. Resolve nested membership before calling a principal low privilege.
5. Record certificate mapping on every relevant domain controller and certificate-authenticating service. Include strong binding mode, enabled Schannel mapping methods, and explicit altSecurityIdentities mappings.

Interpretation rules

• Treat template, CA, network, mapping, and directory-control findings as separate claims even when they form one path.
• Strong KDC mapping can block a specific arbitrary-identity path while the source template remains dangerously broad for other certificate consumers.
• HTTPS alone does not resolve NTLM relay exposure. Record Extended Protection and channel-binding enforcement.
• A missing SID extension is a configuration exposure. Its exploitation path still depends on mapping policy or another identity-injection condition.
• ManageCA, certificate-manager rights, template control, and PKI-object control are not interchangeable; report the authority actually observed.
• Absence from the supplied inventory is unknown, not clean.

Rationalizations to reject

• "Certipy did not label it vulnerable." Tool labels cannot replace the underlying template, ACL, CA, mapping, and endpoint facts.
• "Full enforcement makes subject supply harmless." It constrains KDC mapping; other certificate consumers and chained configuration changes remain in scope.
• "The right is expected, so it is safe." Expected Tier Zero authority still needs an accountable owner and evidence. Low-privilege authority is an exposure regardless of intent.
• "We can prove it by requesting one certificate." A configuration audit does not create credentials or exercise identity paths without separate authorization.
• "ESC numbering is the finding." Describe the actual control failure and conditions; catalogs evolve.