ZeroTrustKerberosLink Penetration Testing Summary¶

Executive Summary¶

ZeroTrustKerberosLink undergoes rigorous security testing as part of our commitment to providing a secure solution for Kerberos to AWS integration. This document summarizes the results of our most recent penetration testing activities and self-assessments, highlighting our security testing methodology, findings, and remediation efforts.

Our security testing program includes both internal security assessments and third-party penetration tests conducted by independent security firms. This comprehensive approach ensures that ZeroTrustKerberosLink is thoroughly evaluated from multiple perspectives, identifying and addressing potential security vulnerabilities before they can be exploited.

The most recent penetration test was completed in April 2025, resulting in the identification and remediation of all critical and high-severity findings. This document provides a summary of the testing methodology, findings, and remediation actions taken to address identified vulnerabilities.

Testing Methodology¶

Our security testing follows a comprehensive methodology designed to identify vulnerabilities across all aspects of ZeroTrustKerberosLink:

Testing Approach¶

1. Reconnaissance: Information gathering to understand the target environment
2. Vulnerability Scanning: Automated scanning for known vulnerabilities
3. Manual Testing: In-depth manual testing of security controls
4. Exploitation: Attempted exploitation of identified vulnerabilities
5. Post-Exploitation: Assessment of potential impact from successful exploits
6. Reporting: Detailed documentation of findings and recommendations

Testing Scope¶

The penetration test covered the following components and aspects of ZeroTrustKerberosLink:

1. Authentication Mechanisms: Testing of Kerberos authentication implementation
2. Authorization Controls: Evaluation of access control mechanisms
3. API Security: Assessment of API endpoints and interfaces
4. Network Security: Testing of network isolation and protection
5. Data Protection: Evaluation of data encryption and protection
6. Web Application Security: Testing of web interfaces and portals
7. Infrastructure Security: Assessment of underlying infrastructure
8. Configuration Security: Evaluation of security configurations

Testing Tools¶

The security assessment utilized a combination of industry-standard and custom tools:

1. Vulnerability Scanners: Nessus, OpenVAS, Nexpose
2. Web Application Scanners: OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite Professional
3. Network Security Tools: Nmap, Wireshark, Metasploit
4. Authentication Testing Tools: Kerberoast, Mimikatz (in controlled environments)
5. API Testing Tools: Postman, OWASP ZAP API Scanner
6. Custom Testing Scripts: Purpose-built scripts for specific test cases

Summary of Findings¶

The penetration test identified several security findings across different severity levels. All critical and high-severity findings have been addressed, with medium and low-severity findings being remediated according to our risk-based prioritization process.

Finding Severity Distribution¶

Key Finding Categories¶

The findings were distributed across the following categories:

1. Authentication Vulnerabilities: 3 findings (0 remaining)
2. Authorization Issues: 4 findings (0 remaining)
3. Input Validation: 6 findings (1 remaining)
4. Configuration Weaknesses: 7 findings (2 remaining)
5. Cryptographic Issues: 2 findings (0 remaining)
6. Session Management: 3 findings (1 remaining)
7. Information Disclosure: 5 findings (2 remaining)
8. Infrastructure Security: 12 findings (3 remaining)

Critical and High Severity Findings¶

This section summarizes the critical and high-severity findings that were identified and remediated. All details have been sanitized to remove specific exploitation techniques while providing sufficient information to understand the nature of the vulnerabilities.

Critical Findings¶

CF-1: Authentication Bypass in Kerberos Ticket Validation¶

Description: Under specific conditions, the Kerberos ticket validation process could be bypassed, potentially allowing unauthorized access.

Impact: An attacker could potentially gain unauthorized access to AWS resources by bypassing the Kerberos authentication check.

Remediation: Implemented comprehensive validation of Kerberos tickets with multiple verification steps and added integrity checks throughout the authentication flow.

Status: Remediated and verified

CF-2: Insecure Key Storage¶

Description: Cryptographic keys used for session token signing were stored with insufficient protection.

Impact: An attacker with access to the system could potentially extract keys and forge authentication tokens.

Remediation: Implemented secure key storage using hardware security modules (where available) or secure key management services with appropriate access controls.

Status: Remediated and verified

High Severity Findings¶

HF-1: Insufficient Role Mapping Validation¶

Description: The role mapping process did not properly validate input parameters, potentially allowing privilege escalation.

Impact: An authenticated user could potentially manipulate role mapping to gain access to unauthorized AWS roles.

Remediation: Implemented comprehensive input validation, added integrity checks for role mapping data, and enhanced logging of role mapping activities.

Status: Remediated and verified

HF-2: Missing Rate Limiting on Authentication Endpoints¶

Description: Authentication endpoints lacked proper rate limiting, making them vulnerable to brute force attacks.

Impact: An attacker could attempt to brute force credentials or session tokens.

Remediation: Implemented rate limiting across all authentication endpoints with appropriate thresholds and temporary blocking of suspicious IP addresses.

Status: Remediated and verified

HF-3: Insufficient TLS Configuration¶

Description: Some components used weak TLS configurations that could potentially be downgraded.

Impact: Communications could potentially be intercepted through TLS downgrade attacks.

Remediation: Enforced strong TLS configurations (TLS 1.2+ with secure cipher suites) across all components and implemented proper certificate validation.

Status: Remediated and verified

HF-4: Insecure Direct Object References¶

Description: Some API endpoints were vulnerable to insecure direct object reference (IDOR) attacks.

Impact: Authenticated users could potentially access resources belonging to other users.

Remediation: Implemented proper authorization checks for all resource access and replaced direct references with indirect references.

Status: Remediated and verified

HF-5: Insufficient Logging of Security Events¶

Description: Some critical security events were not properly logged, limiting the ability to detect and investigate security incidents.

Impact: Security incidents might go undetected or be difficult to investigate.

Remediation: Enhanced logging across all components with particular focus on security-relevant events and implemented real-time monitoring of critical events.

Status: Remediated and verified

Medium and Low Severity Findings¶

Medium and low-severity findings are being addressed according to our risk-based prioritization process. Key categories of these findings include:

Medium Severity¶

1. Session Management Improvements: Enhancing session timeout handling and validation
2. Error Handling: Improving error handling to prevent information disclosure
3. Input Validation: Strengthening input validation for non-critical parameters
4. Access Control Refinements: Fine-tuning access control mechanisms
5. Logging Enhancements: Expanding logging coverage for security events

Low Severity¶

1. Security Headers: Adding additional security headers to web interfaces
2. Documentation Security: Removing sensitive information from documentation
3. Minor Configuration Improvements: Optimizing security configurations
4. Default Settings: Improving security of default configurations
5. UI Security Enhancements: Strengthening security of user interfaces

Remediation Process¶

Our remediation process follows a structured approach to ensure that all identified vulnerabilities are properly addressed:

1. Vulnerability Triage: Assessment of severity and potential impact
2. Root Cause Analysis: Identification of underlying causes
3. Remediation Planning: Development of comprehensive remediation plans
4. Implementation: Application of security fixes and improvements
5. Verification Testing: Confirmation that vulnerabilities have been resolved
6. Documentation: Recording of remediation actions and lessons learned

Remediation Timeline¶

Security Testing Framework¶

ZeroTrustKerberosLink has implemented a comprehensive security testing framework that enables continuous security validation:

Automated Security Testing¶

Our automated security testing includes:

1. Static Application Security Testing (SAST): Code analysis to identify security issues
2. Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST): Runtime testing of applications
3. Dependency Scanning: Identification of vulnerabilities in dependencies
4. Container Scanning: Security analysis of container images
5. Infrastructure Scanning: Assessment of infrastructure configurations

Continuous Security Validation¶

Security testing is integrated into our development and deployment processes:

1. Pre-commit Checks: Basic security checks before code is committed
2. CI/CD Integration: Security testing as part of continuous integration
3. Pre-deployment Validation: Comprehensive security testing before deployment
4. Production Monitoring: Continuous monitoring for security issues
5. Regular Penetration Testing: Scheduled in-depth security assessments

Vulnerability Types Tested¶

Our security testing framework covers a wide range of vulnerability types:

1. Injection Attacks: SQL injection, command injection, LDAP injection
2. Authentication Vulnerabilities: Credential stuffing, brute force, authentication bypass
3. Session Management Issues: Session fixation, session hijacking
4. Access Control Problems: Broken access control, privilege escalation
5. Cryptographic Weaknesses: Weak algorithms, improper key management
6. Security Misconfigurations: Insecure default settings, unnecessary features
7. Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): Reflected, stored, and DOM-based XSS
8. Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF): Forced actions on behalf of authenticated users

Conclusion¶

The penetration testing of ZeroTrustKerberosLink has demonstrated our commitment to security and our ability to identify and address security vulnerabilities. All critical and high-severity findings have been remediated, with medium and low-severity findings being addressed according to our risk-based prioritization process.

Our ongoing security testing program ensures that ZeroTrustKerberosLink maintains a strong security posture, providing our customers with confidence in the security of our solution. We continue to invest in security testing and improvement as part of our commitment to delivering a secure Kerberos to AWS integration solution.

For more information about our security testing program or to report security concerns, please contact our security team at security@zerotrustkerberoslink.com.