ad-environment-constraints
Skill202 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Real-world Active Directory environment constraints that silently break attacks when ignored: NTLM disabled (Kerberos fallback), AES-only KDCs (RC4 blocked by GPO), LDAP signing and channel binding requiring LDAPS on 636, Kerberos clock skew (KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW), SPNs that must be FQDNs never short names or IPs (the misleading invalidCredentials), Protected Users / LAPS / gMSA / MachineAccountQuota, LDAP 1000-object paging, and VPN latency. Use this whenever a bind, TGT request, LDAP query, or SMB negotiation fails in a way that looks like bad credentials but is really hardening, or before running any AD tooling against a domain you have not fingerprinted. Standard-tooling knowledge (netexec, impacket, certipy, bloodyAD, kerbrute), no vendor-specific engine.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- acl-abuseSkill
- adcs-attacksSkill
- ad-methodologySkill
- ad-opsec-telemetrySkill
- coercion-ntlm-relaySkill
- compliance-mappingSkill
- kerberos-attacksSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
17 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 23
Detect the posture before you authenticate: Every constraint below is detectable up front: probe whether NTLM answers, whether the KDC …
- Distinctive: line 57
If a tool only supports pass-the-hash (NTLM hash), treat that as an explicit limitation in an NTLM-disabled environment: it will not work, …
- Very specific: line 66
Do not force -cipher rc4 or an explicit etype 23.
- Distinctive: line 87
Prefer LDAPS on 636. It satisfies both signing and channel binding in one move.
- Distinctive: line 90
If only plain LDAP 389 is available and the server demands signing, the client must sign the connection (SASL sign/seal).
- Distinctive: line 99
Legacy environments without LDAPS: Not every domain has a cert on the DC.
- Distinctive: line 119
If a TGT request that should work fails with a skew error, it is your clock, not your credentials.
- Very specific: line 136
No underlying KRB_AP_ERR_* in the exception chain.
- Distinctive: line 138
Fix: always target Kerberos by FQDN.
- Very specific: line 151
Add the DC to /etc/hosts as <ip> dc01.corp.local dc01 so name resolution never hands a tool a short label or an IP where an FQDN is …
- Distinctive: line 180
Do not assume a technique that works on a normal account works on every account.
- Distinctive: line 182
Protected Users group: no RC4, no NTLM, no unconstrained delegation.
- Very specific: line 189
AS-REP roasting: only works against accounts with pre-auth disabled, so verify per-account (DONT_REQUIRE_PREAUTH), do not assume the whole …
- Distinctive: line 191
MachineAccountQuota (MAQ): default 10. RBCD and shadow-credential attacks that create a machine account fail when MAQ is 0.
- Very specific: line 210
If you write a raw LDAP query, use a paged control (paged_size=1000) and iterate every page.
- Distinctive: line 236
Never conclude a constraint (disabled/required) from a timeout.
- Distinctive: line 238
Before widening timeouts, confirm the slowness is the network and not a blocked local event loop.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
AD Environment Constraints
Code and commands that work in a lab break in a hardened domain, and the failure almost
never says what it is. A Kerberos SPN mismatch surfaces as invalidCredentials. NTLM
being disabled surfaces as a logon failure. AES-only KDCs reject your RC4 request with an
etype error you have to know to read. This skill is the checklist of those constraints and
how to survive each one with standard tooling.
Detect the posture before you authenticate. Every constraint below is detectable up front: probe whether NTLM answers, whether the KDC accepts RC4, whether LDAP signing is required, whether LDAPS is listening. Fingerprint first, then choose your auth path to match. Fixing an auth path reactively after each failure is slower and noisier than reading the environment once and picking the right transport from the start.
1. Authentication protocol: NTLM may be disabled
NTLM can be turned off org-wide or on specific DCs by GPO. Any auth path that assumes NTLM must fall back to Kerberos.
- impacket: add
-k(use Kerberos) and-no-passwhen you have a ccache/TGT. - netexec:
-k/--kerberos. - certipy:
-k/ add--dc-host <fqdn>so it targets the KDC by name.
# NTLM path
nxc smb dc01.corp.local -u user -p pass
# Kerberos path (NTLM disabled): request a TGT, export ccache, reuse it
getTGT.py corp.local/user:pass -dc-ip <dc_ip>
export KRB5CCNAME=user.ccache
nxc smb dc01.corp.local -u user -k --use-kcacheReading the signal, not guessing it. A healthy NTLM-enabled DC answers an NTLM bind
with a bogus password with exactly invalidCredentials / logon-denied, and that proves
NTLM is alive (the DC reached credential verification and rejected the password). Do not
infer "NTLM disabled" from a failed bind with a wrong password. NTLM is actually disabled
only when you see the SSP collapse markers (STATUS_NTLM_BLOCKED, unsupported-function),
or when a bind fails as logon-denied while a valid Kerberos TGT for the same identity
succeeds concurrently. Only then is "wrong password" ruled out as the cause.
If a tool only supports pass-the-hash (NTLM hash), treat that as an explicit limitation in an NTLM-disabled environment: it will not work, and no flag fixes it.
2. AES-only KDCs: RC4 blocked by GPO
Domains migrating off legacy crypto enforce AES-128/AES-256 and reject RC4 (arcfour-hmac).
- Do not force
-cipher rc4or an explicitetype 23. A request that only offers RC4 fails withKDC_ERR_ETYPE_NOTSUPPon an AES-only KDC. - Let tools negotiate. impacket and netexec negotiate supported etypes by default.
- For roasting, offering RC4 first is fine where the KDC still allows it (RC4 hashes crack faster); on an AES-only KDC the request simply falls back to AES automatically.
- On AES-only KDCs with a non-standard salt, AES key derivation needs the salt from an ETYPE-INFO2 pre-auth probe. Standard clients do this as part of the AS exchange; if you hand-roll key derivation you must probe the salt first or the key is wrong.
# Kerberoast: RC4 preferred where allowed, auto-falls back to AES on an AES-only KDC
GetUserSPNs.py corp.local/user:pass -dc-ip <dc_ip> -request -outputfile hashes.kerberoast3. LDAP signing, channel binding, and LDAPS
Hardened DCs require signed LDAP or channel-bound LDAPS. Plain LDAP on 389 gets rejected
after the bind with strongerAuthRequired / LDAP_STRONG_AUTH_REQUIRED.
- Prefer LDAPS on 636. It satisfies both signing and channel binding in one move.
- Certipy, bloodyAD and any LDAP-writing tool need
-scheme ldaps(or the equivalent) when channel binding is enforced; a plain LDAP write is refused. - If only plain LDAP 389 is available and the server demands signing, the client must sign the connection (SASL sign/seal). A tool with no signing support cannot talk to that DC; that is a hard limitation, document it.
certipy find -u user@corp.local -p pass -dc-ip <dc_ip> -scheme ldaps
bloodyAD --host dc01.corp.local -d corp.local -u user -p pass --secure get object <target>Legacy environments without LDAPS. Not every domain has a cert on the DC. Where 636 is
closed, LDAP 389 is your only channel and it is plaintext; signing is often on to
compensate. Distinguish a transport failure (636 closed → connection refused / TLS
handshake error → retry on 389) from a policy failure (bind succeeds, then
strongerAuthRequired → signing/channel-binding issue, a different fix). A tool that tries
LDAPS and falls back to plain LDAP handles the first case; the second needs signing, not a
port change.
4. Clock skew: Kerberos requires ≤5 minutes
Kerberos rejects tickets outside a five-minute window with KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW. Sync to the
DC before any Kerberos operation.
sudo ntpdate <dc_ip> # or rdate -n <dc_ip>
# netexec auto-retries after clock correction on skew errorsIf a TGT request that should work fails with a skew error, it is your clock, not your credentials.
5. Kerberos SPNs: always FQDN, never short name or IP
This is the most misleading failure in AD. A service ticket requested for ldap/dc01
(short) or cifs/10.0.0.1 (IP) does not match the server's canonical SPN, which is the
FQDN. The KDC cannot find the SPN, or the server rejects the AP-REQ, and the client
receives invalidCredentials / logon-denied with no visible Kerberos error. It looks
exactly like a bad password when the credentials are perfectly valid.
Symptoms of an SPN mismatch (not a credential problem):
- Unauthenticated posture probes pass; the TGT mints without error.
- The LDAP/SMB/RDP/WinRM/MSSQL bind over Kerberos fails as logon-denied.
- No underlying
KRB_AP_ERR_*in the exception chain.
Fix: always target Kerberos by FQDN. Promote short hostnames to FQDN, keep already-formed FQDNs (including cross-forest suffixes), and if all you have is an IP you must resolve the real FQDN first; there is no synthetic FQDN that works.
# WRONG: Kerberos against a short name or IP
nxc smb DC01 -u user -k
nxc smb 10.0.0.1 -u user -k
# RIGHT: full FQDN so the SPN matches
nxc smb dc01.corp.local -u user -kAdd the DC to /etc/hosts as <ip> dc01.corp.local dc01 so name resolution never hands a
tool a short label or an IP where an FQDN is required. Do not assume libraries canonicalize
the name via DNS; most do not.
6. Domain context: authentication domain vs target domain
Confusing these is a top source of cross-domain failure. Keep three things distinct:
| Term | Meaning |
| auth domain | the domain the credential belongs to (where the user lives) |
| target domain | the domain being enumerated or attacked |
| target DC / PDC | the DC of the target domain |
- Point
-d <target_domain>at the target, not the auth domain. - Cross-domain over a trust: the credential is from domain A, the target is domain B.
- Cross-domain Kerberos: use the full UPN
user@auth_domain.localto disambiguate. - Cross-domain Kerberoasting:
-target-domain <target_domain>in impacket / netexec. - BloodHound collection: point the collector at the target domain's DC.
In a single-domain lab these coincide, which is exactly why lab-tested commands break in a multi-domain client.
7. Protected accounts and special objects
Do not assume a technique that works on a normal account works on every account.
- Protected Users group: no RC4, no NTLM, no unconstrained delegation. Delegation attacks and RC4 roasting simply do not apply to these members.
- LAPS: the local-admin password is a computer-object attribute (
ms-Mcs-AdmPwdlegacy /msLAPS-Password), readable over LDAP only by principals with the delegated right, not a normal credential path. - gMSA: the password is a managed blob (
msDS-ManagedPassword) retrievable over LDAP by authorized principals, not something you spray or crack. - AS-REP roasting: only works against accounts with pre-auth disabled, so verify
per-account (
DONT_REQUIRE_PREAUTH), do not assume the whole domain is roastable. - MachineAccountQuota (MAQ): default 10. RBCD and shadow-credential attacks that create a machine account fail when MAQ is 0. Check it before you rely on creating one.
# LAPS read (authorized principal), gMSA read, MAQ check: all read-only LDAP
nxc ldap dc01.corp.local -u user -p pass -M laps
nxc ldap dc01.corp.local -u user -p pass --gmsa
nxc ldap dc01.corp.local -u user -p pass -M maq8. LDAP paging: the silent truncation
The DC caps LDAP responses at 1000 objects per page by default. A query that should return 50,000 users returns 1,000 and does not warn you. Any query that can return more than a page must use paged search.
- Standard tools (netexec, impacket, bloodyAD, BloodHound collectors) page automatically.
- If you write a raw LDAP query, use a paged control (
paged_size=1000) and iterate every page. A single unpagedsearchover users/computers is a guaranteed silent truncation in any real domain.
A truncated collection produces a truncated attack graph, and you never see the path that was in the objects you never fetched.
9. Network latency: do not tune timeouts to your lab
Developers test against a lab on the same subnet: sub-millisecond RTT. Most real engagements run over a VPN at 100-400 ms RTT, sometimes over 500 ms. AD operations are multi-round-trip, so cost scales with RTT.
| Operation | Round-trips | At 300 ms RTT |
| TCP + TLS handshake (LDAPS) | ~2-3 | ~0.6-0.9 s |
| NTLM/SPNEGO bind | ~3 + TLS | ~1.5-2 s |
| Kerberos AS-REQ / TGS-REQ | ~1 each | ~0.3 s each |
| DCSync / DRSUAPI | dozens | several s |
- Size timeouts to a latency budget (
worst-case RTT × round-trips + margin), not to the lab baseline: ~5 s for connect, ~8-10 s for bind, more for heavy RPC, with a hard ceiling so a genuinely dead service still fails in reasonable time. - A
TimeoutErrorover VPN means "my budget ran out," not "the DC does not support this." Never conclude a constraint (disabled/required) from a timeout; that is a wrong-answer cached from a slow link. - Before widening timeouts, confirm the slowness is the network and not a blocked local event loop. If connect measures milliseconds but the high-level operation takes seconds on a fast link, the problem is your code, not latency.
Applying this checklist
Match the constraints to what you are doing:
- Anything that authenticates or opens a transport → §§ 1-7.
- Anything that queries many objects → § 8.
- Anything over a remote link → § 9.
Design for the hardest environment on every axis at once: AES-only, no LDAPS, NTLM disabled, cross-domain, tens of thousands of objects, high latency. Tooling that survives that also runs against a lab. The reverse is not true.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

