SMB and Null Sessions: Why Your Pen Test is Probably Wrong
Published Feb 21 2020 09:58 AM 123K Views
Microsoft

Hi everyone, James Kehr here with a guest post. One of the SMB cases we get regularly at Microsoft Support is, “my pen test says you allow Null sessions!” Followed by a string of CVE numbers; like, CVE-1999-0519 and CVE-1999-0520. Which can sometimes lead to, “Why hasn’t Microsoft fixed this? It’s been 20 years!” This post will show why this is probably a false positive on modern Windows. And if it’s not, someone may have done something very bad to your Windows installation.

 

Null sessions

One of the technologies I have worked with the most during my time at Microsoft is SMB. You may also know SMB by one of the other common names: CIFS and Samba. While these are technically three different things, many people use the terms interchangeably to describe the same network file system protocol. Why? That’s a long story involving IBM, Microsoft, Linux, and about 35 years of history. All you need to know is that at Microsoft we use the term SMB (Server Message Block).

 

But if you must know, the simplified version goes something like this: SMB is the protocol, CIFS is an old dialect of SMB, and Samba is the Linux/Unix-like implementation of the SMB protocol. People and companies get familiar with one of those terms and stick to it, which has made the three names interchangeable outside of technical documentation.

 

What is a Null Session you may ask? A null session implies that access to a network resource, most commonly the IPC$ "Windows Named Pipe" share, was granted without authentication. Also known as anonymous or guest access. Windows has not allowed null or anonymous access for a very long time.

 

Credentials and SMB

Most intrusion detection software doesn’t seem to understand how Windows auth works over SMB in an Active Directory (AD) environment, and that is usually the cause of the false positive. Windows and SMB really want people to make a successful connection to a file share and they go out of their way to try every possible credential available to complete the connection.

 

People tend to think of a username as the only authentication mechanism and, in a workgroup, that is mostly right. Add AD to the mix and the authentication story changes. The act of joining a computer to a domain creates a computer object. The computer object (<hostname>$) is a valid authentication object in AD and can be used to authenticate to Windows and an SMB share. Though it is rare that SMB falls back to the computer, or machine, account, it is possible.

 

By way of example, Hyper-V can be setup to access virtual hard drives over SMB 3 without using S2D or a SAN. This setup uses the machine account of the Hyper-V host(s) to access the SMB share rather than a user or a service account.

 

When no account is explicitly provided SMB will try implicit credentials. First, the logged-on user’s account, and then, sometimes, the computer object. Some shares and third-party file servers with certain permissions will allow computer accounts to connect. You may have limited or no usable access, but it will authenticate.

 

Using implicit credentials is not a null session connection since credentials are being provided; even though, they were not explicitly provided. This means the SMB session is being authorized, and therefore not a null session.

 

What are implicit and explicit credentials, exactly? An explicit credential is one that is provided as part of authentication. It’s like clicking the “Connect using different credentials” checkbox when mapping a drive with File Explorer, or /user with “net use”.  Implicit credentials are the opposite of that. When no explicit credential is provided it is implied that the operating system should use the credentials of the current logged-on user.

 

The Test

You don’t believe me, do you? The pen test said it’s a null session. You even ran the commands to prove it. Now you think Microsoft is up to their old tricks. The 20-year-old null session bug still isn’t fixed!

 

Fine, let me prove it to you. These are all tests anyone can run to confirm. I’ll use Wireshark, the industry standard packet capture and analysis tool, with three main tests for your edification.

 

  1. Workgroup to Workgroup – Two non-domain joined Windows 10 1903 (Spring 2019 Update) systems. All updates installed, through Oct 2019. No changes made other than setting up a file share.
  2. Workstation to Workstation – Two domain joined Windows 10 1903 (Spring 2019 Update) systems. All updates installed, through Oct 2019. No changes made other than domain join and setting up a file share.
  3. Workstation to Domain Controller (DC) – One domain joined workstation to the DC. Workstation running fully patched Win10 1903, DC running fully patched Windows Server 2019. Default domain policies, no hardening, no extra policies or configuration.

There are two commands commonly used to test null sessions, and I’ll be testing both, plus one extra scenario-based test. This first command explicitly sets a NULL user (/user:) and password ("")

 

net use \\<IP ADDRESS>\IPC$ "" /user:

The second command sets no explicit credentials. This is where the more interesting behavior will happen because it leaves room for Windows to try implicit credentials.

 

net use \\<IP ADDRESS>\IPC$

A normal share for non-IPC$ testing.

 

net use \\<IP Address>\share

For domain testing I’ll use the domain’s SYSVOL share.

 

net use \\<DC>\SYSVOL

 

Understanding IPC$

The inter-process communication share ("IPC$") is a special case. It’s the share that allows remote Named Pipe access. Names Pipes are an old-school method used to allow two services to talk with each other, even over a network connection. IPC$ functionality has been around for ages and default access rules to IPC$ has changed with each release of Windows. Older versions of Windows may behave differently than these tests.

 

Network setup:

Subnet: 10.19.0.0/24

 

Server:    10.19.0.1

RedWrk:    10.19.0.2

BlueWrk:   10.19.0.3

 

Domain User accounts:

RedUser

BlueUser

 

Domain:

CONSTOSO

Local accounts:

LclRed

LclBlue

 

Computer names:

 

RedWrk

BlueWrk

 

How SMB Connects

There’s a bit of basic knowledge that may be needed before we proceed. There are three key SMB commands used for authentication and authorization: Negotiate, Session Setup, and Tree Connect.

 

  • Negotiate – This command determines what dialect of SMB (major.minor version) will be used, discovers basic settings, and can perform some pre-authentication, depending on dialect.
  • Session Setup – This is where authentication is performed. Credentials, Kerberos tickets, or security tokens are exchanged here, and general authorization is either granted or denied at this step.
  • Tree Connect – This is where authorization to a share happens. Tree Connect takes the security account from Session Setup and uses that to determine whether access to the individual share(s) should be granted.

Because of the way SMB works, it’s possible to authenticate successfully but not get access to any resources. This is why it’s important to look under the proverbial covers to see what’s really going on before making final judgement.

 

On to the tests…

 

Workgroup to Workgroup

This is the basic home scenario. Two computers used by a regular folks who just want things to work without ever opening a settings console in their entire life.

 

Command:

net use \\10.19.0.3\IPC$ "" /user:

Result: No access granted.

JamesKehr_0-1582228625717.png

 

net use \\10.19.0.3\IPC$

Result: No access granted.

JamesKehr_1-1582228625720.png

 

NOTE: Windows refused to complete the connection without supplying credentials.

 

net use \\10.19.0.3\share

Result: No access granted.

JamesKehr_2-1582228625722.png

 

NOTE: Windows refused to complete the connection without supplying credentials.

 

This is all expected behavior because RedWrk and BlueWrk have no inherent trust between each other. No centralized authentication method means that each workgroup member must rely on their local security database, which does not contain details about the other workgroup member(s) unless those details are explicitly added. This means that all anonymous and implicit authentication methods will fail.

 

Workstation to Workstation (Domain-joined)

RedWrk and BlueWrk were joined to the domain for the next step. The same “net use” commands were run from RedWrk to BlueWrk. This is where things start to get interesting for us.

 

Command:

net use \\10.19.0.3\IPC$ "" /user:

Result: No change in behavior.

JamesKehr_3-1582228625726.png

 

This first example, with “/user:”, is an explicit null credential, which is denied by Windows.

 

net use \\10.19.0.3\IPC$

JamesKehr_4-1582228625727.png

 

“Ah ha! It worked! Vindication!” I hear you cry. “That’s a null session!”

 

Um, no.

 

Remember when I said Windows really wants to make that connection work? Well, we really do, and when no credential is entered Windows will automatically try the user’s domain credential. This is the implicit credential I’ve been talking about.

 

Let’s look at the packet capture. Specifically, the Session Setup part, where authentication happens.

 

No.

Time

Source

Destination

Protocol

Length

Info

10

0.061281

10.19.0.2

10.19.0.3

SMB2

661

Session Setup Request, NTLMSSP_AUTH, User: CONTOSO\RedUser

11

0.093470

10.19.0.3

10.19.0.2

SMB2

159

Session Setup Response

 

You will note that RedWrk sent the CONTOSO\RedUser account, even though we didn’t explicitly set that credential. This is the same mechanism that allows you to connect to your work shared drives through Windows Explorer without explicitly entering your Windows credentials, just in command line form.

 

Since valid domain credentials were passed and accepted, this is not a null session. Even though it may look like one on the surface.

 

You may notice that SMB is using NTLM authentication and not Kerberos in some tests. This can happen when an IP address is used instead of a hostname or FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name).

This is because an IP address requires a little extra setup to be a valid Kerberos object. Also, NTLM is in plain text which makes authentication easier to understand in the context of an article.

 

net use \\10.19.0.3\share

JamesKehr_5-1582228625728.png

 

Same story as the previous command. SMB used the domain account of the logged-on user and the connection was successful.

 

Here’s the packet capture data:

 

10

0.027866

10.19.0.2

10.19.0.3

SMB2

639

Session Setup Request, NTLMSSP_AUTH, User: CONTOSO\RedUser

11

0.035118

10.19.0.3

10.19.0.2

SMB2

159

Session Setup Response

 

Workstation to Domain Controller

Command:

net use \\10.19.0.1\IPC$ "" /user:

Result: No change in behavior. Null sessions are not allowed.

JamesKehr_6-1582228625729.png

 

net use \\10.19.0.1\IPC$

This command works because the Windows user credentials were passed. No NULL sessions here.

 

17

69.625346

10.19.0.2

10.19.0.1

SMB2

639

Session Setup Request, NTLMSSP_AUTH, User: CONTOSO\RedUser

18

69.632472

10.19.0.1

10.19.0.2

SMB2

159

Session Setup Response

 

net use \\10.19.0.1\SYSVOL

What have we here?

JamesKehr_7-1582228625730.png

 

Everything in the packet capture looks like it should connect, but SYSVOL is a special case.

The SYSVOL and NETLOGON shares require Keberos authentication on modern Windows. This can be changed by policy, but we only recommend it when you have a legacy system that you just can’t convince management to get rid of. Kerberos is really the way to go.

 

A switch to the domain name, which switches to Kerberos, and it logs right in:

JamesKehr_8-1582228625731.png

 

Here is the data from Wireshark:

 

33

20.178302

10.19.0.2

10.19.0.1

KRB5

1379

TGS-REQ

34

20.178941

10.19.0.1

10.19.0.2

KRB5

1408

TGS-REP

36

20.179357

10.19.0.2

10.19.0.1

SMB2

3063

Session Setup Request

40

20.183650

10.19.0.1

10.19.0.2

SMB2

314

Session Setup Response

SMB2 (Server Message Block Protocol version 2)

    SMB2 Header

    Session Setup Response (0x01)

        [Preauth Hash: ce5e61ef7c41ea76682c8bda4ff803ba7f74123a15736201…]

        StructureSize: 0x0009

        Session Flags: 0x0000

        Blob Offset: 0x00000048

        Blob Length: 184

        Security Blob: a181b53081b2a0030a0100a10b06092a864882f712010202…

            GSS-API Generic Security Service Application Program Interface

                Simple Protected Negotiation

                    negTokenTarg

                        negResult: accept-completed (0)

                        supportedMech: 1.2.840.48018.1.2.2 (MS KRB5 - Microsoft Kerberos 5)

                        responseToken: 60819706092a864886f71201020202006f8187308184a003…

                        krb5_blob: 60819706092a864886f71201020202006f8187308184a003…

 

The Caveat…

This behavior is not necessarily default in older versions of Windows. This article covers some of the legacy Windows behavior, and how anonymous IPC$ access can be prevented.

 

Knowing is Half the Battle

Pen tests can only go into so much depth in its analysis. Collecting and analyzing packets is beyond the abilities of most products. When in doubt, validate for yourself whether it’s a false positive or a true positive.

 

  • Download and install Wireshark on a test system where nothing else is running. This makes reading the data easier.
  • Start a Wireshark capture.
  • Reproduce the issue by running the appropriate command from the pen test.
  • Stop the Wireshark capture.
  • Add the following as the display filter (case sensitive): tcp.port==445
    • This filter works if you want to see both SMB and Kerberos traffic: tcp.port==445 or tcp.port==88
  • Look at the SMB Session Setup for a user account or Kerberos ticket.

 

A false positive can be identified when a valid authentication was passed under the covers using the implicit credential behavior of Windows.

 

Other false positives we see revolve around using the registry to verify SMB settings and SMB encryption. SMB settings should be verified via PowerShell, *SmbServerConfiguration and *SmbClientConfiguration, and through packet capture analysis to make sure the feature is working properly; especially, when dealing with older versions of Windows and non-Windows file server which may not support the newest features, or have the full SMB protocol suite enabled.

 

SMB encryption is one of those settings. Not only must both client and server support SMB3 and be encryption enabled, but file share or server must explicitly enable encryption. What is the best way to see whether SMB encryption and other security features are working? You guessed it, packet capture.

 

Trying to determine accurate results from pen testing without a packet capture is like trying to discover life in the deep ocean by staring really hard at the ocean surface from a boat deck. Sure, you might see a little ocean life, but you won’t know what’s really going on until you dive down below the surface. So the next time you get back failed test for SMB on a pen test, remember to check those packets to make sure the test is accurate.

 

I hope you found this useful. 

 

- James Kehr, Escalation Engineer, MS Networking Support

15 Comments
Copper Contributor

So... what if I have a client trying to access a real share (not IPC$) with the right user and the NULL user at the same time?

I have this issue on a very specific client (others are fine) and I can't find a proper explanation.

Steel Contributor

Doing a 

net use \\dc1\IPC$ "" /user:

against a Server 2012 R2 domain controller returns 

The command completed successfully.

The registry values that I thought should block that are set as following:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\restrictanonymous=1
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\restrictanonymoussam=1
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\everyoneincludesanonymous=0
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanServer\Parameters\restrictnullsessaccess=1

Running the same command against a member server with the same registry settings returns

 

System error 5 has occurred.

Access is denied.

Could you please elaborate on that as I did not find any clue as to why a domain controller behaves differently.

Microsoft

@auanasgheps, you really need a packet capture to see for sure what's going on. There is only one SMB session per server name (file server). There can be multiple authentications per sessions. Chances are the user is connecting, the null is being rejected, and everything is going over the user connection. But, again, it depends on the file server OS, version, and settings as to what behavior it will follow.

 

@Daniel Niccoli, restrictnullsessaccess should be set to 1.

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/security-policy-settings/network...

Steel Contributor

@JamesKehr  My apologies, restrictnullsessaccess set to 1. I slipped on my keyboard when typing.

Copper Contributor

@JamesKehrI did a packet capture indeed, I can see NULL auths sent from my PC. The server then maps these requests as anonymous/guest.

I have posted the issue here with a screen from Wireshark too.

 

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/my-w10-pc-is-sending-anonymous-unauthenticated...

(nobody has replied maybe too technical for that forum?)

 

After deep investigation I have discovered that most of these calls were made by my Antivirus (Avira Antivirus) scanning network paths, but File History (the backup feature of Windows) is producing the exact same errors. So ultimately there's something wrong with Windows when doing SMB on my behalf.

I've reproduced the issue several times in VMs with clean install and different Samba servers too.

There's something wrong here and I don't know how to report this to Microsoft.

Copper Contributor

@JamesKehr  - Have you tried it from a linux machine ? using rpcclient or smbclient may yield more information than just using net commands from windows.

Microsoft

@auanasgheps "Host name: PC-OLIVER" is a computer/workstation authentication object. This is a valid authentication object. See the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the "Credentials and SMB" section. Whether the SMB server authorizes the computer object or not is up to configuration.

 

@Rey_Porter I have used smbclient many times. Just not for pen testing. I picked "net use" because that is the command most Windows pen tests use, and it allows Windows users to test without installing anything special or setting up an external server. rpcclient is new to me. I'll check it out.

Copper Contributor

It would be a very poor pentester who reported null sessions and only gave simple "net use" commands as an example.

 

That said, this will usually be found by a vulnerability scanner which has its own implementation of SMB, which will explicitly try to connect with a null session. A scanner like Nessus will not try to reuse any credentials cached on the host it's running on. If the pentester sees this in the vulnerability scanner output, and then uses faulty commands in an attempt to prove the issue then that's a facepalm-worthy event.

 

Null sessions may no longer be enabled by default on current windows versions, but there are instances where they can be explicitly enabled. There are also a large number of legacy systems out there, as well as third party implementations of SMB with varying default settings and features. Amusingly enough, very old legacy systems often don't show up in pentest reports despite being highly vulnerable because the people doing the testing don't know how to exploit them.

 

The ability to open a null session is a weakness. If you are unable to authenticate in any way, you can only attack the authentication process. If you can authenticate even as a null user, then you gain access to a lot of additional functionality which may have weaknesses. As an example, most of the ETERNAL* exploits leaked from the NSA in 2017 require the ability to authenticate. If null sessions are enabled then this exploit is a remote attack, if null sessions are disabled then it becomes a privilege escalation as you'd require some form of unprivileged account in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Microsoft

@DS128, you'd be surprised how often that happens. And thanks for sharing insight on pentesting!

 

Legacy systems are always dangerous, as are legacy protocols. This is one reason why Ned, and Microsoft, have been fighting hard to get rid of SMB1. Removing SMB1 dependency will, by relation, get rid of a lot of vulnerable legacy systems that rely on SMB1.

 
Copper Contributor

@JamesKehr  Sadly it doesn't surprise me at all... There are a lot of so called "pentesters" who don't even know how to run a vulnerability scanner properly, let alone actually understand how the systems they're looking at function. Vulnerability scanners have all kinds of problems that need to be worked around, for instance the common scanner Nessus won't report if it can't resolve a target (ie you mistype the hostname) it just won't appear in the report. If a host resolves to multiple addresses only one gets scanned and the others are silently ignored. Many scanners will silently ignore IPv6 - not scanning it at all, but also giving you absolutely no warning that your site has an AAAA record which hasn't been touched. Many scanning and pentest companies will also ask for IP addresses as targets, but a lot of protocols (especially HTTP or SSL) often need the correct hostname (eg HTTP/1.1 virtual hosting) in order to reach the hosted content, if you only know the ip you will miss lots of things.

 

They get away with it because pentest reports are "by exception", ie if you receive an empty pentest report does it mean your network is very secure? Or does it mean the tester did a poor job? This combined with a race to the bottom, clients demanding ever cheaper pentest services and in many cases actually wanting an empty report (it gives them less work to do if theres nothing they need to fix).

 

If you have a spare few minutes, take a look at http://simplectf.ev6.net - this is a very simple capture the flag, meant to test basic networking knowledge rather than any specialist techniques. Many pentesters fail to get all or some of the challenges, yet someone with a good experience of networking and no pentest experience got them all in 20 minutes.

Copper Contributor

@JamesKehr and @DS128 - I'm try to understand null session enumeration in the context of different behavior between Domain Controllers and member servers. Specifically, I don't seem to be able to find a way to block enumeration of users and groups on DCs, and I'm wondering if it's possible to do that. The pcaps I've examined show that the username being used for authentication was empty, or null, and yet the authentication comes back as a success, and I'm not doing it from a system that would have valid machine credentials within the domain. Can you help me understand what I'm missing?

 

Specifically, when I use a Linux command (from a Kali Linux instance, running in Virtual Box on a non-domain-joined machine), I can run something like:

 

rpcclient -W '' -c querydispinfo -U''%'' '10.x.y.z'
 
And get back a list of users from the domain controller.  When I look at the Wireshark, it appears to be passing the garbage hostname that I created randomly on the Linux VM, with a null username and domain name, yet it comes back as authenticated, as shown below in this response:
 
(snipped from frame 20 of the pcap)

SMB2 (Server Message Block Protocol version 2)
SMB2 Header
ProtocolId: 0xfe534d42
Header Length: 64
Credit Charge: 1
NT Status: STATUS_SUCCESS (0x00000000)
Command: Session Setup (1)
Credits granted: 33
Flags: 0x00000001, Response
Chain Offset: 0x00000000
Message ID: 3
Process Id: 0x00000000
Tree Id: 0x00000000
Session Id: 0x0001a40b4400048d Acct: Domain: Host:FTZKXYAA
[Account: ]
[Domain: ]
[Host: FTZKXYAA]
[Authenticated in Frame: 20]
Signature: 00000000000000000000000000000000
[Response to: 19]
[Time from request: 0.008970000 seconds]
Session Setup Response (0x01)
[Preauth Hash: 4170b1bd5b3386a9a6261365ce07f7c8abbc44390152d7ae1cdb442b108729360d0c8536…]
StructureSize: 0x0009
0000 0000 0000 100. = Fixed Part Length: 4
.... .... .... ...1 = Dynamic Part: True
Session Flags: 0x0000
.... .... .... ...0 = Guest: False
.... .... .... ..0. = Null: False
.... .... .... .0.. = Encrypt: False
Blob Offset: 0x00000048
Blob Length: 9
Security Blob: a1073005a0030a0100
GSS-API Generic Security Service Application Program Interface
Simple Protected Negotiation
negTokenTarg
negResult: accept-completed (0)

 

So, is this a "null session" or an "authenticated session"? I think it's authenticated ... but without valid domain credentials I don't understand how that can be. Can you point out something I'm missing to help it make sense?

Microsoft

@dryara DC's are a special case when it comes to NULL sessions. AD logon requires anonymous access to the netlogon, samr, and lsarpc named pipes so users can logon. You can't authenticate to netlogon if you haven't completed logon.

 

Hardening Active Directory is outside of my area of expertise. The best I can do is point you to the official AD hardening doc.

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-ds/plan/security-best-practices/best-pra... 

Copper Contributor

@JamesKehr While it's good to see Microsoft trying to get rid of SMBv1, i think a lot more could be done...

 

SMBv1 was deprecated back in 2007 with the release of Vista which first introduced SMBv2, and yet 15 years later we still see devices not only supporting but in some cases actually requiring SMBv1. And i suspect a big part of this comes down to the way in which backwards compatibility is implemented...

 

If a user on Vista tries to access an SMB share, it will try SMBv2 first and if that fails it will fall back to SMBv1, but the problem is there is no feedback to the user indicating that they have been degraded to an older inferior protocol. The users have no way to know what version they are using, so they are not going to demand support for newer better protocols from vendors, neither are they going to favor products which already support the newer protocols.

 

What should really happen is displaying a warning to users whenever they are failed over to a weaker protocol, possibly including a link to a site explaining in simple terms that the older protocol has been replaced with a superior replacement, which they should be using whenever possible.

 

SMBv2 isn't even current, SMBv3 has been out for several years and offers plenty of benefits over SMBv2. Then there are other superior protocols like TLSv1.3, IPv6, HTTP/2, WPA3 and SNMPv3 among others yet the legacy versions are still widely used because there is little widespread demand for the newer versions.

 

So my ask to Microsoft and other vendors. As well as supporting current protocols, display warnings to users if they are accessing a service which forces a downgrade to any legacy protocol. Create awareness, and thus demand for progress.

Copper Contributor

Hi, 

 

  I guess I'm still unclear with what do I make of these results. Running 'net use \\dc\ipc$ "" /user:' command from a non-domain joined machine to a domain controller. Result is successful completion with following information (see picture below) in WireShark. So to my understanding a session has been authenticated (also confirmed by entry in eventLogs. 

 

Main question - what to do? GPO sets required registry entries as per recommendations and this still happens? Can this session be used for anything? Is there a risk? (needless to say that i.e. Nessus finds this as vulnerability).

 

Thanks in advance.

 

null_session_working - Copy.PNG

Copper Contributor

I think this post needs an update since it's the top search result for "SMB Null Sessions" and contains some slightly misleading information regarding domain controllers. The premise is still true: it's probably a false positive when running the tests against domain controllers. But it's not due to default credentials.

 

I think you've clarified it succinctly in the comments. Domain controllers will allow null sessions against the following three named pipes and should be allowed to do so: LSARPC, NETLOGON, and SAMR.

 

But the issue is that the NET USE test against IPC$ will show a successful connection for domain controllers which is contradictory to the article contents.

 

In the screenshots above, when the command returns "System error 53 has occurred. The network path was not found," this is caused by SMB not connecting on tcp/445.

mrompskybirch_0-1672867358324.png

 

Whether that was due to a firewall or other network issue when those tests were run isn't clear. But if named pipes are secured, the error will be "System error 5 has occurred. Access is denied." And again, for domain controllers there will be no error at all. Which is fine.

mrompskybirch_1-1672867637873.png

 

For anyone else that comes across this looking for a solution that might not exist, the following additional links may be helpful:

Interestingly enough, it looks like servers with the RDS Licensing role may also have the following anonymous named pipes: HydraLSPipe and TermServLicensing.

Version history
Last update:
‎Feb 28 2020 09:12 AM
Updated by: