Skip to content

Add support for custom named pipe permissions - #21

Open
doronshemtov wants to merge 1 commit into
archivefrom
feature/custom-pipe-permissions
Open

Add support for custom named pipe permissions#21
doronshemtov wants to merge 1 commit into
archivefrom
feature/custom-pipe-permissions

Conversation

@doronshemtov

Copy link
Copy Markdown
  • Allows to set custom permissions for the named pipes that are used for communicating with the monitoring DLL.

  • Creates a custom security descriptor using an SDDL string provided by an analysis option ("custom_pipe_sddl").

  • Main use case: monitored DLL is injected into a low-integrity process and doesn't have sufficient permissions to access a named pipe with default security descriptor.

@yoniabrahamy yoniabrahamy left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Just in general, what are the values we can deliver for custom_pipe_sddl?

@doronshemtov

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@kevoreilly

Copy link
Copy Markdown

In which scenario(s) are processes being launched with low integrity?

@doronshemtov

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@kevoreilly For example Firefox and other browsers are rendering content in a low-integrity child processes.
Unfortunately it is not always enough in order to monitor these browsers since they have additional sandboxing capabilities, but it should at least allow capemon to communicate if it was able to load into these processes.

@kevoreilly

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Ah right I see - a good reason. As you say monitoring modern browsers isn't trivial and I have spent a lot of time looking for api hook exclusions to try and get them working better in cape... ultimately to no avail. But I would definitely appreciate hearing how you get on in this area.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants