Securitylab•September 2, 2026•🇷🇺Translated from Russian

Essential Active Directory Checks Before Launching Any Penetration Test

Internal penetration tests are easily compromised in the first minutes. Spotting a familiar technique and launching a tool without context can produce log noise, affect services, or yield results that cannot be explained to the client. With Active Directory this problem is especially visible because the domain links users, servers, authentication, and access rights. The approach of “check first, understand later” rarely produces good outcomes.

Before any active testing, a sufficient picture of the environment must be assembled. The goal is not a perfect map but enough understanding to know what is being examined, which risk is being validated, and what may change after an action.

Defining scope and rules of engagement

The phrase “test Active Directory” conveys almost nothing by itself. The scope must clarify whether one or multiple domains are included, whether domain controllers may be contacted, whether scanning is permitted, which service accounts must remain untouched, and who on the client side must be notified of critical findings on the day of discovery.

A working document should record allowed network segments, prohibited actions, escalation paths for critical findings, and the method for logging results. This prevents on-the-fly decisions about touching a particular service or testing a chosen hypothesis.

Inventory before exploitation

After boundaries are agreed, the composition of the assessment area must be determined: how many domains are reachable, where the domain controllers reside, which servers rely on domain authentication, and whether separate segments or trust relationships exist. The resulting map helps separate important objects from background noise. Ordinary user accounts, service accounts, and domain administrators may appear similar in an export, yet the consequences of compromising each are very different.

During inventory, objects that warrant closer attention become visible. A service account cannot be assessed by name alone; its purpose, Service Principal Name settings, rights, and connected systems must be understood before any test begins.

Account roles and Kerberos pre-authentication

Technical objects in Active Directory must be classified by purpose: user accounts, service accounts, privileged accounts, and integration accounts. Accounts with Kerberos pre-authentication disabled should be identified because they are susceptible to AS-REP Roasting. The same disciplined approach applies to NTLM traffic and relay opportunities.

Kerberos ticket-granting mechanisms, DACL permissions, and delegation rights must be examined together. An error in object permissions can form the first link in a privilege-escalation chain even when the account is not a member of an obvious administrative group.

Certificate services and network context

AD CS infrastructure is frequently overlooked until late in an assessment. Testers need to identify who manages certificate templates, how certificates are issued, and which rights are tied to the issuance process. The same sequence applies: configuration first, then hypothesis, then safe validation.

Finally, the engagement format must be aligned with the client. A standard internal pentest seeks to confirm vulnerabilities, while a Red Team exercise also measures detection speed and log visibility. Every action must be logged with timestamp, target object, account used, hypothesis tested, and result obtained so that findings remain reproducible and rollback procedures can be verified.

Related articles

Habr•Vulnerabilities & Exploits

From HFT to Infosec: How AI Accelerates the Developer-Hacker Arms Race

An experienced security researcher draws a parallel between high-frequency trading evolution and modern vulnerability research, showing how artificial intelligence compresses the time between patch release and working exploit. The author describes the classic workflow where developer Rob fixes buffer overflows in an FTP server while researcher Dave reverse-engineers the diff to locate the exact change. With AI assistance, both sides now generate patches or exploits in minutes rather than days or weeks. The piece highlights that publishing a patch effectively discloses the location of the flaw, allowing automated tools to produce reliable exploits almost instantly. Historical examples such as wu-ftpd CVEs and the EternalBlue/MS17-010 worm illustrate how quickly mass exploitation follows disclosure. The author warns that open-source projects face an existential dilemma: withhold patches and leave users exposed, or release them and trigger immediate automated scanning. Recommendations include mandatory back-porting of fixes and wider use of runtime protections, yet the overall outlook remains pessimistic about the coming wave of fully automated attacks.

Habr•Vulnerabilities & Exploits

Ghost Assets in Vulnerability Management: How Identification, Merging and Asset History Eliminate Anomalies in MaxPatrol VM

Positive Technologies experts explain how infrastructure changes create duplicate, merged and phantom assets that distort vulnerability management. The article details three core mechanisms inside MaxPatrol VM: unique asset identification across scan sources, non-destructive merging of new and existing data, and full lifecycle history with configurable aging policies. It describes how the system distinguishes assets using prioritized keys such as system ID, FQDN, MAC address and VM ID, then applies recursive merging rules that respect multiple data sources. Policies allow teams to set freshness and obsolescence thresholds, automatically hiding assets after 90 days while preserving historical snapshots for PDQL queries. The piece also covers practical cloning and partial-scan scenarios that can produce misleading duplicates or lingering collections.

BoletimSec•Vulnerabilities & Exploits

GreyNoise Detects Active Exploitation Attempts of CVE-2021-36260 Against Hikvision Cameras

GreyNoise recorded exploitation attempts targeting CVE-2021-36260 in Hikvision cameras and recorders between September 21 and October 1. The vulnerability carries a CVSS score of 9.8 and allows unauthenticated remote command execution through insufficient input validation in the embedded web server. Attack traffic originated from four IP addresses, three routed through a commercial VPN in Lithuania and one from a Ukrainian residential network, with all targets located in Ukraine. Attackers leveraged a publicly available Nuclei template to probe devices, though GreyNoise confirmed only scanning activity and not successful compromises. The five-year-old flaw remains actively scanned despite an available firmware patch from Hikvision and a CISA advisory recommending immediate updates. Password changes provide no protection because the attack requires no authentication. Defenders are advised to apply firmware updates, remove devices from public internet exposure, and segment video surveillance networks from critical infrastructure.

Security NEXT•Vulnerabilities & Exploits

Splunk Enterprise Discloses 46 Vulnerabilities Including Critical Patroni Authentication Flaw

Splunk has published three security advisories detailing a total of 46 vulnerabilities affecting Splunk Enterprise and related components. Three of the issues were rated critical, with CVE-2026-76268 receiving a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8. The flaw resides in the Patroni REST API used for PostgreSQL cluster management within search head clusters, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands. Another high-severity issue, CVE-2026-76266, enables local privilege escalation to root on Linux systems during package updates. The remaining vulnerabilities cover product code, internally identified problems, and third-party packages. Organizations are urged to apply the available patches promptly.