The Unseen Hand Manipulating Your Network
Modern enterprise networks, despite their hardened perimeters, often harbor legacy weaknesses that attackers eagerly exploit. Among these vulnerabilities, Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) and NetBIOS Name Service (NBT-NS) poisoning stand out as prime enablers of adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) attacks. These weaknesses, exacerbated by outdated protocol dependencies, allow malicious actors to hijack authentication exchanges, pivot within an environment, and escalate privileges—all without ever needing initial credentials.
Unlike brute-force techniques or complex zero-day exploits, AiTM leveraging LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning and Server Message Block (SMB) relay requires no sophisticated malware or advanced persistence. Instead, it capitalizes on a fundamental flaw: how Windows machines resolve network names when DNS fails. This oversight, combined with SMB’s trust-based authentication model, facilitates lateral movement and unauthorized access with chilling efficiency.
Understanding how attackers execute these attacks, and more importantly, how defenders can recognize and mitigate them, is crucial for safeguarding organizational assets against stealthy adversaries.
The Attacker’s Playbook: Exploiting the Cracks in Name Resolution
When a Windows machine cannot resolve a hostname via DNS, it falls back on LLMNR and NBT-NS. These protocols were originally designed for convenience, allowing devices to communicate in environments lacking proper DNS infrastructure. However, in modern networks, this convenience has transformed into a security liability.
Stage One: Setting the Trap
A machine attempting to resolve an unknown hostname will broadcast a query across the local network, asking if any other device can provide an answer. This is where the adversary seizes control. By impersonating the requested hostname and responding faster than the legitimate source, the attacker convinces the victim’s system that it has found the correct destination. At this point, the machine unknowingly attempts authentication with the attacker’s system, unwittingly handing over hashed credentials in the process.
Stage Two: Capturing Credentials with Impersonation
Windows authentication mechanisms—particularly NTLM (NT LAN Manager)—come into play at this juncture. Once the victim machine receives a spoofed response, it attempts to authenticate using its stored credentials. However, instead of connecting to a legitimate service, it transmits NetNTLMv2 hash credentials to the attacker-controlled system.
This captured authentication data provides two powerful opportunities:
- Offline Cracking: The attacker can attempt to crack the NetNTLMv2 hash offline, ultimately recovering plaintext passwords if weak credentials are used.
- Relay Attacks: The captured authentication challenge-response exchange can be relayed to a separate legitimate service that accepts NTLM authentication, allowing immediate access without ever knowing the original password.
Stage Three: The SMB Relay Maneuver
SMB relay, the next phase of the attack, takes advantage of how Windows authentication mechanisms function. Many networked services—such as file shares, printers, and remote desktop gateways—still accept NTLM-based authentication. Instead of storing or cracking the credentials, the adversary simply relays them to a high-value target within the network, effectively tricking a privileged machine into granting access.
If the relayed credentials belong to a user with administrative privileges, the attack rapidly escalates. With one successful authentication relay, the adversary can execute remote code, deploy malware, or establish persistent access to critical systems.
The Defender’s Perspective: Disrupting the Attack Lifecycle
The defensive landscape against LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning and SMB relay revolves around eliminating reliance on legacy name resolution protocols, strengthening authentication mechanisms, and monitoring for signs of malicious activity.
Disrupting Name Resolution Hijacking
The first and most effective line of defense is to disable LLMNR and NBT-NS entirely. In properly managed environments where DNS infrastructure is robust, these legacy protocols serve little purpose beyond exposing organizations to unnecessary risk.
However, disabling these protocols is just one piece of the puzzle. Many environments struggle with misconfigurations, legacy dependencies, and unpatched systems that inadvertently reintroduce vulnerabilities. Ensuring that all hosts prioritize DNS for name resolution and restricting the ability to fall back to broadcast-based alternatives is critical.
Hardening Authentication Against Relayed Attacks
Since SMB relay relies on NTLM-based authentication, strengthening authentication mechanisms can drastically reduce its effectiveness. Enforcing SMB signing ensures that SMB connections validate the legitimacy of their counterpart, preventing attackers from relaying credentials to unauthorized endpoints.
Beyond SMB signing, organizations should enforce Kerberos-based authentication wherever possible. Unlike NTLM, Kerberos is resistant to relay attacks due to its mutual authentication process. Enforcing NTLMv2-only policies, restricting NTLM usage, and preventing credential forwarding further reduces exposure.
Threat Detection and Monitoring
Even in environments where legacy protocols cannot be fully eliminated, early detection and rapid response can prevent exploitation from escalating. Several indicators can reveal ongoing AiTM attacks:
- Unusual LLMNR/NBT-NS traffic: Legitimate use of these protocols should be rare in well-maintained networks. Any spike in traffic could indicate an attacker performing reconnaissance.
- Unexpected authentication attempts: Captured credentials are often relayed to privileged endpoints. Monitoring authentication logs for failed logins from unexpected sources can reveal malicious activity.
- Unusual SMB session behavior: Attackers leveraging SMB relay will attempt to establish new sessions using relayed credentials. Identifying anomalous SMB activity, particularly from non-standard devices, is crucial.
Advanced security solutions, such as Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) platforms and Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions, should integrate rules to flag such activity. Proactively querying event logs and analyzing network traffic patterns can provide valuable intelligence before a full-scale compromise occurs.
Beyond Immediate Countermeasures: The Future of Network Security
While disabling legacy protocols and enforcing strict authentication controls mitigate immediate risks, organizations must adopt a long-term security posture that aligns with modern cyber threats.
Zero Trust and Identity-Centric Security
Legacy authentication mechanisms inherently assume trust based on network locality—a mindset that attackers exploit. Shifting towards a Zero Trust model, where every authentication request is verified regardless of its source, eliminates these blind spots. Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) and enforcing strict least privilege access controls greatly diminishes the attack surface.
Segmentation and Privileged Access Management (PAM)
Adversaries thrive in flat, unrestricted network architectures. Proper network segmentation limits lateral movement, restricting an attacker’s ability to pivot across systems. Complementing segmentation with Privileged Access Management (PAM) ensures that sensitive credentials are not readily available for exploitation.
Continuous Monitoring and Adaptive Defense
Cyber threats evolve, and so should defensive strategies. Implementing adaptive security measures, where AI-driven analytics continuously assess authentication behaviors, enhances threat detection beyond static rule-based systems. Security operations teams should adopt proactive threat hunting methodologies, identifying weak points before adversaries exploit them.
Conclusion: The Invisible War on Legacy Weaknesses
The ability to manipulate name resolution and abuse authentication protocols remains one of the most effective tactics in an adversary’s arsenal. LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning and SMB relay illustrate the dangers of outdated systems lingering within modern infrastructures.
Security professionals must recognize that defending against these attacks requires more than a one-time configuration change—it demands a comprehensive strategy that encompasses protocol deprecation, authentication hardening, and active threat detection.
As attackers refine their techniques, defenders must remain equally vigilant. The organizations that anticipate and mitigate these threats today will be the ones that stand resilient in the cyber battles of tomorrow.
ITInnovationStation 
Leave a comment