Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NamedPipe connections failure in lateral movement #16683

Open
zerobytes999 opened this issue Jun 16, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

NamedPipe connections failure in lateral movement #16683

zerobytes999 opened this issue Jun 16, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
bug not-stale Label to stop an issue from being auto closed

Comments

@zerobytes999
Copy link

zerobytes999 commented Jun 16, 2022

Steps to reproduce

How'd you do it?

  1. Create reverse https payload and run it on machine 1
  2. Create pivot listener with pivot command on machine 1 with pipe name msf-pipe
  3. Create reverse named pipe payload with msfvenom to connect to machine 1 msf-pipe
  4. Run payload on machine 2
  5. Create pivot listener with pivot command on machine 2 with pipe name msf-pipe
  6. Create reverse named pipe payload with msfvenom to connect to machine 2 msf-pipe
  7. Run payload on machine 3

Machine 1 OS: Windows 10 pro
Machine 2 OS: Windows server 2019
Machine 3 OS: Windows 10 pro
Payloads tried in x64 and x86 architecture - EXE format

Expected behavior

Running the first named connects smoothly. Running the 2nd named pipe to connect to the first named pipe using reverse named pipe payload should open a session

Current behavior

Running 2nd named pipe to connect to the first named pipe fails, on TLV logging i see that the new pivot session command is received but never continues

Metasploit version

Metasploit v6.2.2

@github-actions
Copy link

Hi!

This issue has been left open with no activity for a while now.

We get a lot of issues, so we currently close issues after 60 days of inactivity. It’s been at least 30 days since the last update here.
If we missed this issue or if you want to keep it open, please reply here. You can also add the label "not stale" to keep this issue open!

As a friendly reminder: the best way to see this issue, or any other, fixed is to open a Pull Request.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale Marks an issue as stale, to be closed if no action is taken label Jul 21, 2022
@zerobytes999
Copy link
Author

issue still exists

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the Stale Marks an issue as stale, to be closed if no action is taken label Jul 26, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link

Hi!

This issue has been left open with no activity for a while now.

We get a lot of issues, so we currently close issues after 60 days of inactivity. It’s been at least 30 days since the last update here.
If we missed this issue or if you want to keep it open, please reply here. You can also add the label "not stale" to keep this issue open!

As a friendly reminder: the best way to see this issue, or any other, fixed is to open a Pull Request.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale Marks an issue as stale, to be closed if no action is taken label Aug 25, 2022
@gwillcox-r7 gwillcox-r7 added not-stale Label to stop an issue from being auto closed and removed Stale Marks an issue as stale, to be closed if no action is taken labels Sep 3, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug not-stale Label to stop an issue from being auto closed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants