Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
If the concern is about malware, well, most malware is just as dangerous in the non-admin user space anyways. Also, the AV should pick up that type of malware / bad apps anyways. Other stuff woudl run in the user space where local admin wouln't matter.
Security is multifaceted and Admin rights is merely one facet.
A/V is another but you can't do without it just because you have no local admins.A/V isn't 100%, just as removing admin rights isn't a 100% effective security measure but together they make a really good combo.
Granted not all malware needs rights to run, especially if it just sits in RAM and is returning info to a C&C server but I'd say that most malware wants to write something to the local PC. Having removed admin rights, you have defeated something that the A/V vendor doesn't yet have a signature for.
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
It seems like restricting users to non-admin privileges causes more inconvenience and service desk overhead than it's actually worth. And, from a security perspective, doens't really seem like any more of a factor one way over the other.
The sacle of security vs convenience is a hard one to get right.
This is where having a software library for sanctioned applications (not part of the SOE) can be held so users can install themselves. For example, the SCCM Software Center.Yeah, there's going to be some initial pain with certain functions not being available but this is where SOME things can be done by members of the Power Users group.
-
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
I'd say that most malware wants to write something to the local PC.
Right, but there are a lot of places on the PC you can write to that does not require local administrative privileges.
-
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
Having removed admin rights, you have defeated something that the A/V vendor doesn't yet have a signature for.
Not necessarily, with UAC, programs ran as users in the local Administrators group still runs as a standard user and requires elevation.
-
At first glance I was going to say - what, are you crazy - of course we still remove local admin rights, for the same reasons we did before, but perhaps the biggest reason was keeping bad programs at bay, and as you mention, that's barely a thing anymore with zero day flaws, privilege escalation, etc.
A few reasons to still do it
- keep users from installing software not sanctioned by the company/IT - try to keep shadow IT at bay
At first glance I was going to say - what, are you crazy - of course we still remove local admin rights, for the same reasons we did before, but perhaps the biggest reason was keeping bad programs at bay, and as you mention, that's barely a thing anymore with zero day flaws, privilege escalation, etc.
A few reasons to still do it
- keep users from installing software not sanctioned by the company/IT - try to keep shadow IT at bay
- keep people from removing your management tools
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter. As mentioned in the OP, viruii can frequently run as the local user, and reek plenty of havoc without the need for admin rights. Getting local admin rights likely ensures their ability to become persistent or any user on the computer, but non local admin, they still still easily be persistent for the same user.
UAC - this is frequently disabled by viruii programs, so that thing is really more of just a hassle for users than a real roadblock for malware.
- keep users from installing software not sanctioned by the company/IT - try to keep shadow IT at bay
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
If it's about users doing something to work around company device management and security software, well then at that point it becomes a matter of company policy, management, and not an IT issue.
An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
Policies are only good if they followed, HR & management are only good if they have the balls to do something.
Chances are that a rogue actor won't care about policies or HR. -
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
If it's about users doing something to work around company device management and security software, well then at that point it becomes a matter of company policy, management, and not an IT issue.
An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
Policies are only good if they followed, HR & management are only good if they have the balls to do something.
Chances are that a rogue actor won't care about policies or HR.Right - but IT shouldn't be doing anything that HR and management aren't standing behind them on.
I know I hate this thinking/logic as much as most of the next IT pros, but if you really think about it, IT is an extension of the business - it really needs to allow/not allow only the things the business specifically cares about. Getting in the way of the rest just because "we know better" is not a reason to do it.
I have to remind myself of this on a near daily basis.
Example - we had users logging into Chrome on shared computers. This really bothered me because they never logged out before walking away. I rolled out a policy on those computers forcing them all into incognito mode, which prevented their ability to log in - of course it also changed the display to black and huge letters of incognito mode... I did inform all the users of the change, but still got push back.
Then one of the stake holders told me - remind me to tell you to not install a rollcage in my car - when I told him why the change was done. basically, he was telling me it wasn't my place to protect him because that was not an onus he or the other stakeholders put on me. He was right of course, and I instantly removed the incognito mode.
-
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
At first glance I was going to say - what, are you crazy - of course we still remove local admin rights, for the same reasons we did before, but perhaps the biggest reason was keeping bad programs at bay, and as you mention, that's barely a thing anymore with zero day flaws, privilege escalation, etc.
A few reasons to still do it
- keep users from installing software not sanctioned by the company/IT - try to keep shadow IT at bay
At first glance I was going to say - what, are you crazy - of course we still remove local admin rights, for the same reasons we did before, but perhaps the biggest reason was keeping bad programs at bay, and as you mention, that's barely a thing anymore with zero day flaws, privilege escalation, etc.
A few reasons to still do it
- keep users from installing software not sanctioned by the company/IT - try to keep shadow IT at bay
- keep people from removing your management tools
As for software/viruii that don't require local admin rights, uhuhm - CHROME, rights levels don't matter. As mentioned in the OP, viruii can frequently run as the local user, and reek plenty of havoc without the need for admin rights. Getting local admin rights likely ensures their ability to become persistent or any user on the computer, but non local admin, they still still easily be persistent for the same user.
UAC - this is frequently disabled by viruii programs, so that thing is really more of just a hassle for users than a real roadblock for malware.
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.
- keep users from installing software not sanctioned by the company/IT - try to keep shadow IT at bay
-
I can understand an ALL-or-NOTHING approach, but this really is pretty much impossible. All-or-nothing as in 100% of company with zero local administrative user access on all devices.... not even exceptions or not even for a limited amount of time.
-
@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?
I would answer this and say - yes it is still more secure. If you're a target, then next to nothing is going to protect you. But come on, how many people are actually targets? 0.1% maybe? probably not even that many.
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
I'd say that most malware wants to write something to the local PC.
Right, but there are a lot of places on the PC you can write to that does not require local administrative privileges.
This is true, but that leaves very few places to write to. Chiefly, the users profile. Things executing from there should be heavily scrutinised by the A/V. Whilst not solving the issue, it does provide better protection.
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
I can understand an ALL-or-NOTHING approach, but this really is pretty much impossible. All-or-nothing as in 100% of company with zero local administrative user access on all devices.... not even exceptions or not even for a limited amount of time.
You're right, a zero exception time - in that case, regarding an AD setup, and admin could accomplish no work as domain admin level rights are needed to do 99% of the work, if not 100%.
If we remove IT from the pool of people we're talking about - of the 200 or end users I support over multiple companies, only one requires local admin rights for an application to function. And for that I found an app that allows that single app to run as local admin, not the user. Now yes, someone who knows what they are doing, Might be able to exploit that app to get local admin privileges, but it's such a backwater 3rd party app that whomever is doing it would specifically be targeting that client and more specifically, that user - and we already agreed that a targeted user stands little chance against a skilled hacker.
-
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
I'd say that most malware wants to write something to the local PC.
Right, but there are a lot of places on the PC you can write to that does not require local administrative privileges.
This is true, but that leaves very few places to write to. Chiefly, the users profile. Things executing from there should be heavily scrutinised by the A/V. Whilst not solving the issue, it does provide better protection.
Frankly, in an admin'ed environment - there is really no reason anything should execute from the user's profile, but then most of the run on demand remote admin tools wouldn't function, but I did start by saying an admin'ed environment, so perhaps in those cases, we'd have to get IT involved for a third party to do a remote control session - think tech support on a software package.
-
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
If it's about users doing something to work around company device management and security software, well then at that point it becomes a matter of company policy, management, and not an IT issue.
An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
Policies are only good if they followed, HR & management are only good if they have the balls to do something.
Chances are that a rogue actor won't care about policies or HR.Right - but IT shouldn't be doing anything that HR and management aren't standing behind them on.
I know I hate this thinking/logic as much as most of the next IT pros, but if you really think about it, IT is an extension of the business - it really needs to allow/not allow only the things the business specifically cares about. Getting in the way of the rest just because "we know better" is not a reason to do it.
I have to remind myself of this on a near daily basis.
Example - we had users logging into Chrome on shared computers. This really bothered me because they never logged out before walking away. I rolled out a policy on those computers forcing them all into incognito mode, which prevented their ability to log in - of course it also changed the display to black and huge letters of incognito mode... I did inform all the users of the change, but still got push back.
Then one of the stake holders told me - remind me to tell you to not install a rollcage in my car - when I told him why the change was done. basically, he was telling me it wasn't my place to protect him because that was not an onus he or the other stakeholders put on me. He was right of course, and I instantly removed the incognito mode.
Always do what your boss wants, sure.
In my case, we've given our security requirements from further up the food chain, so our management don't have a choice in the matter. -
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
If it's about users doing something to work around company device management and security software, well then at that point it becomes a matter of company policy, management, and not an IT issue.
An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
Policies are only good if they followed, HR & management are only good if they have the balls to do something.
Chances are that a rogue actor won't care about policies or HR.Right - but IT shouldn't be doing anything that HR and management aren't standing behind them on.
I know I hate this thinking/logic as much as most of the next IT pros, but if you really think about it, IT is an extension of the business - it really needs to allow/not allow only the things the business specifically cares about. Getting in the way of the rest just because "we know better" is not a reason to do it.
I have to remind myself of this on a near daily basis.
Example - we had users logging into Chrome on shared computers. This really bothered me because they never logged out before walking away. I rolled out a policy on those computers forcing them all into incognito mode, which prevented their ability to log in - of course it also changed the display to black and huge letters of incognito mode... I did inform all the users of the change, but still got push back.
Then one of the stake holders told me - remind me to tell you to not install a rollcage in my car - when I told him why the change was done. basically, he was telling me it wasn't my place to protect him because that was not an onus he or the other stakeholders put on me. He was right of course, and I instantly removed the incognito mode.
Always do what your boss wants, sure.
In my case, we've given our security requirements from further up the food chain, so our management don't have a choice in the matter.Weird way of saying it - but you're right - middle management never really does have a choice.
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
I can understand an ALL-or-NOTHING approach, but this really is pretty much impossible. All-or-nothing as in 100% of company with zero local administrative user access on all devices.... not even exceptions or not even for a limited amount of time.
It doesn't have to be.
Power users, accounts with local admin right for specific users... it depends on how you/yur business want to skin the cat. -
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
I'd say that most malware wants to write something to the local PC.
Right, but there are a lot of places on the PC you can write to that does not require local administrative privileges.
This is true, but that leaves very few places to write to. Chiefly, the users profile. Things executing from there should be heavily scrutinised by the A/V. Whilst not solving the issue, it does provide better protection.
I read that over 90% of ransomware, for example, does not require local admin rights...
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
I'd say that most malware wants to write something to the local PC.
Right, but there are a lot of places on the PC you can write to that does not require local administrative privileges.
This is true, but that leaves very few places to write to. Chiefly, the users profile. Things executing from there should be heavily scrutinised by the A/V. Whilst not solving the issue, it does provide better protection.
I read that over 90% of ransomware, for example, does not require local admin rights...
Right why would it? Assuming it can just run in user space - so many people/companies just allow full access to everything to their users so the crap just runs and gets what it can...
-
@Dashrender said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
I'd say that most malware wants to write something to the local PC.
Right, but there are a lot of places on the PC you can write to that does not require local administrative privileges.
This is true, but that leaves very few places to write to. Chiefly, the users profile. Things executing from there should be heavily scrutinised by the A/V. Whilst not solving the issue, it does provide better protection.
I read that over 90% of ransomware, for example, does not require local admin rights...
Right why would it? Assuming it can just run in user space - so many people/companies just allow full access to everything to their users so the crap just runs and gets what it can...
I mean, the worst things that could happen, don't seem to matter if the user has local admin rights anyways.
-
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@Obsolesce said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
@nadnerB said in Re-evaluating Local Administrative User Rights:
I'd say that most malware wants to write something to the local PC.
Right, but there are a lot of places on the PC you can write to that does not require local administrative privileges.
This is true, but that leaves very few places to write to. Chiefly, the users profile. Things executing from there should be heavily scrutinised by the A/V. Whilst not solving the issue, it does provide better protection.
I read that over 90% of ransomware, for example, does not require local admin rights...
Yeah, the miscreants are getting smarter.
