Introduction

Imagine you’ve ordered a small paper unicorn from an online marketplace. You clicked “Buy”, received a cheerful notification, and expect a courier to bring the box tomorrow. If the unicorn is delayed by a day, it will be annoying but not catastrophic: an apology, a discount promo code — and the incident is forgotten.

Now let’s multiply one late unicorn by several hundred thousand orders.

Packages start heading to the wrong cities. The website shows an item is in stock, even though the required bin is empty. Conveyors stop, boxes get stuck between floors, the cargo piles up with no freight manifest. Trucks line up at the gates, and every minute of downtime turns into blown schedules, support tickets, fines, and lost sales.

It is at exactly this scale that a cyberincident in a warehouse becomes a problem for the entire business. A modern warehouse is no longer just a big building with shelving. It is a tightly interconnected hybrid system: web applications, radio channels, and an automated factory. Physical processes here depend on data, and errors in data have very physical consequences. Examples include an outage that affected warehouse management systems at the grocery giant Morrisons, and the 2025 Form 10-K annual report of United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI), which confirmed unauthorized activity on information technology systems that impacted order fulfillment. More recently, reports emerged that a cyberattack disrupted eight CEVA Logistics warehouses across Europe and exposed customer delivery data.

This paper follows a single order through a warehouse to show where the operation is vulnerable, the stages it traverses, the systems that drive it, and the points where an attacker can reach them. We then set out the threat model: what is at risk, who is in a position to take it, and how each risk lands on the business. From there, we look at how an attacker gets in, and what reaching the warehouse management system costs in practical terms: orders unshipped, inventory records nobody can trust, and an operation that stops. We close with recommendations on where the controls that matter actually sit.

Tracing the unicorn

A modern warehouse is a sequence of stages involving many machines and people, all working together to keep the business process stable so that, in the end, your order gets delivered. This process consists of eight main stages, shown in the figure below.

So let’s assume we’ve ordered our paper unicorn and are waiting for it at home. Let’s follow our order through all the main stages, from its arrival at the warehouse to the final stop on its journey.

1. Unloading
   First, the unicorn arrives in the unloading zone, packed in a big truck. The driver is assigned a gate, for example, via a tablet with kiosk mode enabled, or an outdoor display board, indicating where the truck should park and where the cargo will be unloaded. Even at this very first step, a digital command (the gate number on the screen) is already triggering a physical action. Therefore, incorrectly assigned gates can create a queue, delay unloading, or send goods into the wrong workflow.
2. Receiving
   At this stage, employees identify the cargo. They scan a barcode using a portable data terminal (PDT) and the central system receives a message indicating that this object arrives at the warehouse. From this moment, the unicorn exists in two forms at once: as a real box and as a record in the information system. If these two versions diverge, the error is inherited by all subsequent processes.
3. Putaway
   Next, the goods are moved into internal storage. Two new devices come into play here. First, a thermal printer, connected to the internal network over Wi-Fi, creates an internal label for each item. Then an employee, forklift, or automated system moves the goods to the assigned bin, often with the help of lifts controlled by PLCs. Both of these devices can be valuable attack entry points: one can let an adversary pivot into the internal network, while the other can give them control over an electric motor.
4. Storage
   Then the unicorn goes into storage. Many distribution centers use multi-level mezzanine structures: several floors of metal shelving inside a huge space. They allow efficient use of the building’s height, but at the same time complicate control over the technical infrastructure. Wi-Fi access points, cameras, switches, cables, and sensors may be mounted high overhead or buried deep inside the rows. A forgotten Ethernet cable or misconfigured networked device (access point or switch) left behind in a dark corner can become a convenient initial access point into critical infrastructure.
5. Picking
   When the customer places an order, picking begins if the goods were already stored in the warehouse or as soon as they are unloaded. A PDT, workstation, light indicator, or voice terminal directs the employee to the required bin where they pick the goods and move them to the next stage. These devices are themselves potential attack entry points: compromising a workstation or PDT could allow an attacker to manipulate picking information, which could misdirect employees to the wrong bin. Here, both the speed and integrity of the information are critical, and any manipulation or disruption can lead to wrong orders, delays, or problems in subsequent stages.
6. Sorting
   At the sorting stage, the warehouse starts to look more like a factory. Boxes move through conveyor belts and pass through different scanners, diverters, and chutes. The sorting plans are usually stored and managed by dedicated servers, while PLCs are responsible for controlling the machinery and executing these plans. For example, when the warehouse management system (WMS) decides that our unicorn should take route A, the control system needs to activate the right diverter at the right moment, sometimes within a fraction of a second.
7. Packing
   During packing, an employee or a robotic arm places the goods into the final box, prints the shipping label, and sometimes measures the dimensions and weight of the package. Safety mechanisms usually prevent robotic arms from leaving the controlled zone and harming nearby operators, but their compromise might inflict physical damage on the packages being processed.
8. Shipment
   Finally, at the shipping stage, the parcel heads to the gates. Automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) move containers and pallets across the warehouse, while the dock management system coordinates the truck that will carry the unicorn onward to a store, a sorting center, or straight to the customer. These robots are themselves a potential target for attackers. Attacks can be conducted against AGVs and AMRs to interfere with their operation, for example by affecting their navigation or preventing them from reaching their intended destination.

All eight stages are coordinated by the WMS. It looks like a large web application, but in its role it’s closer to the operating system of the entire warehouse: it knows which goods exist, where they’re located, who or what should move them, and where they go next, linking employees, inventory levels, storage addresses, tasks, and orders. It also exchanges data externally: with ERP systems, transport platforms, marketplaces, dark stores, and external carriers.

Surrounding the WMS is an even larger digital ecosystem: identity services, databases, APIs, printers, carrier systems, technicians’ laptops, video surveillance, access control, fire and gas alarms, power supply, and a building management system (BMS).

That is why a single “warehouse network” doesn’t really exist. As we’ve seen, there are many overlapping technologies — IT infrastructure, OT systems, radio, cloud services, building security, and automation — layered on top of one another. A lone vulnerability scanner will never tell you whether a warehouse is secure.

Hunting the unicorn

Securing an environment such as a warehouse requires a comprehensive security assessment covering all of its interconnected systems. This involves identifying vulnerabilities across each system and understanding how weaknesses can be combined into attack paths that a real attacker could exploit. But a vulnerability only matters in proportion to what it exposes and who is able to reach it, so before looking at the weaknesses themselves, we need to understand what an attacker in this environment is actually after, because in a warehouse, the blast radius extends well beyond data. Everything we just traced — the systems, the devices, and the people operating them — exists to keep goods moving, and attacks in various parts along that chain can affect the business differently. The chart below shows what is at risk in the warehouse and where those risks land for the business. The segment on the left groups them under the three core security properties: integrity, availability, and confidentiality. The segment on the right maps each property to the business outcomes a failure can cause.

The first area at risk is integrity. Inventory counts, locations, orders, and shipment data must stay in sync with the physical world. Corrupting a record silently desynchronizes the operation, and because the eight stages form a dependency chain, one falsified entry early on is inherited downstream, surfacing later as stockouts and mis-shipments. In its deliberate forms, this lets an attacker redirect goods, release stock, and perform other actions on behalf of the platform’s vendors under cover of legitimate records. Integrity is also a safety concern: when people or machines act on information that no longer reflects the physical environment, a data failure can become a physical incident. This is why integrity is the only property linked to all five outcomes, including harm to people.

The second is availability, the warehouse’s ability to keep goods moving. Halting a conveyor, a sorter, label printing, or the WMS stops orders from shipping, and in a business built on speed, every hour of downtime means delayed deliveries and broken promises. Ransomware can bring the whole warehouse to a standstill. The impact shows up as operational disruption, lost revenue, and reputational damage.

The third is confidentiality. Customer data, business records, and system credentials are valuable targets. Their exposure leads to legal liability and reputational damage, and stolen credentials often open the door to further attacks. Where the WMS connects to financial or ERP processes, the risk extends to theft of funds.
Knowing what is at risk tells us what an attacker stands to gain; the next question is who is in a position to take it. Threat actors differ in the access they already hold. For example, an attacker may be authenticated and privileged, have limited physical or remote access, or have no legitimate access to the environment at all. Based on their relationship with the warehouse and their level of access, threat actors can generally be divided into two categories:

1. External. An attacker with no legitimate relationship with the warehouse or the organization, operating without authorized access. External attackers can be divided into two categories based on their physical proximity to the environment:
   1. Remote. An attacker operating from outside the site’s physical area, reaching the environment through whatever the organization exposes or makes reachable over the internet, including web services, remote access infrastructure, and third-party connections used by suppliers, carriers, and integrators.
   2. Proximate. An attacker with no legitimate access who has nevertheless moved within physical range of the site’s locally reachable technologies. They may, for example, be in a parking lot, a neighboring unit, or a delivery bay. Their proximity may allow them to interact with wireless, radio, Bluetooth, or other short-range interfaces without possessing an account, badge, employment relationship, or other authorized access.
2. Internal. An individual with legitimate access to the warehouse, its systems, or its information, who intentionally or unintentionally creates a security risk. This includes employees, administrators, operators, contractors, and temporary staff.

Combining these threat actors and their access levels with the risks identified earlier, the vulnerabilities present in each system, the resulting attack surfaces, and the potential attack paths between them provides a threat model for the warehouse environment. This allows an organization to understand how different systems and people could be targeted, how individual weaknesses could be combined, and where security controls are most needed.

Cornering the unicorn

Knowing what is at risk and who might come after it still leaves the most practical question open: how they would actually get in, and how far they could go once they did. The diagram below sets out the warehouse’s attack surface: every point where an attacker can get in, organized by the access that reaching each point requires.

On the left are the attacker categories discussed above, distinguished by where they stand and what access they already hold. Each reaches the environment through a different set of entry points, and the impact of a successful attack can land on several systems, from the WMS to OT systems such as robots, sorters, and physical access control system (PACS). The WMS is highlighted because it is the most significant of these: it coordinates the OT systems, so compromising it can affect the entire operation rather than a single process.

Next, we will cover the initial access vectors, the points a threat actor can use to reach the warehouse environment. Following that, we turn to the impact on the logistics processes themselves, focusing on the WMS, since its compromise affects every logistics operation that depends on it.

Initial attack vectors

Internet-facing services

Remote access through internet-facing services, third-party connections, and corporate networks gives an external attacker a foothold on the warehouse network infrastructure. It is a well-covered problem and not specific to this environment, so we note it here as an entry point but will not examine it further.

Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other radio channels

Wi-Fi connects handhelds, tablets, printers, cameras, and workstations. Bluetooth serves scanners, headsets, and positioning beacons. Zigbee and similar low-power protocols run lighting, sensors, and building automation, while LoRaWAN carries telemetry over long distances. Cellular provides a backup channel for kiosks and contractor equipment, and proprietary protocols control industrial panels and specialized machinery.

Radio passes through windows, gates, roofing, and thin external panels, so a network built for receiving and processing goods may be reachable from the parking lot and, with a directional antenna, from considerably farther away.

That reach matters in two ways. It gives an external attacker a place to start, as proximity alone is enough to reach the Wi-Fi and the low-power protocols, and from there to gain an initial foothold in the warehouse networks.

However, radio does not only lead into the network. It also connects directly to the field devices and carries the live control traffic of warehouse operations, which makes availability a first-order concern. If hundreds of handhelds lose their connection at once, picking stops. If an AGV loses its control channel, the safe reaction may be to halt in place, and a stopped machine can block an entire route.

Physical network

The scale of the warehouse itself is part of the attack surface. A fulfillment warehouse can run up to tens of thousands of square meters, with racking climbing several stories and walkways threading through it. Structured cabling runs along that racking, cameras and access points are mounted on that, and wall jacks sit behind pallets that have not moved in months. Almost none of it is in anyone’s line of sight.

That gives a person in the warehouse something a normal office does not: unsupervised access to live network infrastructure. Unplugging a ceiling camera leaves an active port. An unused jack behind a shelf leaves another. Neither requires tools, credentials, or any interaction with a system that logs anything. And since the camera or access point sits on the same segment as the rest of the site, the compromised port, not being isolated, opens a path to the network core.

Barcode scanners

Barcode scanners are everywhere in a warehouse. They are the main tool workers use to tell the system what is moving and where, supporting receiving, picking, packing, and inventory management. A typical setup has handheld scanners communicating with a base station, which is in turn connected to a workstation or another business system.

This makes the scanner an entry point into the core network in two ways.

First, through the barcode itself. Since the scanner acts as a keyboard to the connected host, a maliciously crafted barcode or QR code can inject keystrokes when scanned, potentially giving the attacker an initial foothold on the host without directly accessing the network.

Second, through the scanner’s wireless link. During a customer engagement, with the provided test stand of such a device, we discovered that an attacker within range could inject keystrokes into the connected host and potentially achieve remote code execution without user interaction. This attack pattern was observed across multiple vendors, including, for example, Honeywell devices affected by CVE-2026-4272.

In both cases, the result is the same: a foothold on a host inside the warehouse network. The scanner is simply the entry point; the significance of that foothold comes from the host’s trusted position within the operational environment and its connectivity to core systems.

Portable data terminals

Portable data terminals (PDTs) are essentially ordinary Android devices with an embedded barcode scanner, carried by workers to scan items; each scan is passed to a dedicated application that forwards it to a remote server over an API. To keep workers on task, the devices usually run in kiosk mode, locking the user to that single application and preventing interaction with the rest of the Android system.

That lockdown is exactly what an attacker wants to break, and breaking it is what turns the terminal into an initial access vector: escaping the kiosk can expose the Wi-Fi password of the network the terminal is connected to, or allow malicious software to be installed that gives the attacker remote access to the network over the internet.

Printers

Warehouses contain different types of printers. Alongside the usual IT printers used for documents and paperwork, there are specialized thermal printers, small devices that use heated elements on the printhead to create labels, barcodes, and tags. As we mentioned earlier, these are mainly used to print the labels, usually containing barcodes, that are attached to goods during the putaway stage.

Here we focus on mobile thermal printers: small, battery-powered devices that workers can carry or wear. They typically connect to the internal network over Wi-Fi to receive print commands, while also supporting Bluetooth for connecting to nearby devices. This combination makes them a potential entry point into the internal network.

Some models, such as the Zebra ZQ630, support multiple interfaces and can run applications directly on the device. During a security assessment, we discovered that apps can be uploaded and executed over Bluetooth. By exploiting a pairing misconfiguration, an attacker within Bluetooth range could bypass pairing, upload malicious software, and gain an initial foothold through the printer.

Impact on logistics processes (attacks on WMS)

With a foothold in the network, an attacker can pivot to the logistics processes themselves: from the WMS through the warehouse infrastructure to the PLCs and the machinery they drive. As we saw earlier, all OT systems and devices are interconnected and the WMS sits at the head of that chain: it is the system of record every other process reads from and writes to, so compromising it reaches all of them at once. That, and its being specific to this environment, is why it is the focus here.

Warehouse management systems (WMS) are the software platforms that optimize warehouse processes from the entry of goods to their exit. They provide real-time visibility into inventory and orchestrate end-to-end fulfillment by integrating with many warehouse subsystems and pieces of automation equipment, such as conveyors, PLCs, robotics, scanners, and voice systems. A typical WMS includes modules for receiving, inventory control, order management, labor management, shipping, and reporting. Major vendors include SAP EWM, Oracle Warehouse Management, Manhattan Active, Blue Yonder, Infor, Körber/HighJump, Microsoft, and TECSYS.

To picture how central this is, think back to our unicorn. From the moment it was scanned at receiving, it stopped being only a physical box and became a record inside the WMS, a record the system then used to decide where it should be stored, when it should be picked, how it should be sorted, and where it should ship. Every device employed along the way — the PDT at receiving, the printer at putaway, the workstation at picking, the conveyor at sorting — was really just talking to the WMS. It is the thread that ties all eight stages together, which is exactly what makes it such a valuable target.

Because modern WMS platforms are usually web-based and heavily interconnected, they inherit common web and API vulnerabilities alongside flaws specific to the WMS itself. A recent example is CVE-2026-70774 in Oracle Warehouse Management, part of Oracle E-Business Suite. Oracle rated it High and described it as an easily exploitable authorization bypass flaw in which a low-privileged attacker with network access can compromise the application, affecting integrity and availability by allowing unauthorized creation, deletion, or modification of critical data.

A flaw like this may look like a typical web application issue, but its consequences in a warehouse are more serious, because the WMS is the system of record. If an attacker can modify its data, they can alter stock levels, bin locations, receiving records, picking tasks, or shipment information, silently corrupting the digital twin of the warehouse. And since the eight stages form a dependency chain, that corruption doesn’t stay contained: a falsified record at receiving is inherited by putaway, picking, and everything downstream. The physical box and its record diverge, and every later process trusts the record.

The most direct version of this attack comes from an authorization bypass flaw like the Oracle vulnerability above. Here the threat actor can be an external attacker who has reached the application over the network, or an insider such as a low-privileged operator or storekeeper who already holds a legitimate account.

The danger grows when such a flaw is chained with others. An external attacker who combines remote code execution with SQL injection could generate shipment orders to arbitrary addresses together with the documents needed for goods to physically leave the warehouse, fabricate waybills, acceptance or transfer records, and registers, while also exposing customer data such as names and delivery addresses. In effect, the goods are sent out with legitimate-looking paperwork.

This is why ordinary web vulnerabilities carry considerable weight in a WMS. For an external attacker or an insider probing beyond their assigned role, broken access control could open a path into another warehouse zone, allow manipulation of other workers’ tasks, permit unauthorized exception operations, or expose administrative APIs. A server-side request forgery flaw could force the WMS server to reach resources an external attacker cannot touch directly, and if the network is flat or only formally segmented, that server may in turn reach internal management panels, cloud service interfaces, or systems sitting close to the operational network, turning a single web bug into a bridge between IT and OT.

Attacks on a WMS don’t always target the application directly, though. As we saw while tracing the unicorn, the warehouse is full of connected devices that already hold trusted access. A handheld terminal carries authenticated WMS API access as a matter of course, and anyone who gains control of that terminal inherits it (by escaping the kiosk, for example). Depending on the device’s permissions, that might mean confirming picks that never occurred, falsifying receiving operations, adjusting stock counts, or marking orders complete — something warehouse employees themselves could use to avoid their assigned duties.

Where the WMS is connected to control and automation systems, access to the WMS can extend into physical operations, including conveyors, sorting systems, lifts, doors, and pumps.

PLCs translate WMS instructions and sensor inputs into physical actions. Compromising a system that controls them therefore creates an opportunity to manipulate those actions. The impact can be as simple as a sorting diverter sending boxes down the wrong route, a conveyor repeatedly entering an error state and creating a backlog, or a falsified sensor value causing a line to be treated as clear when it is full.

However the WMS is compromised, the business consequence is the same: inventory corruption, unauthorized shipments, and operational disruption, each reaching the customer in the end as a late or missing delivery, the wrong item in the box, or a personal address exposed to a stranger.

Securing the unicorn

We followed our unicorn through web applications and databases, radio channels and PDTs, printers, conveyors, robots, and the loading zone. Because warehouse environments combine IT, OT, wireless, physical, and human components, security controls should be implemented as a single, coordinated security architecture rather than as isolated measures. Network segmentation should be a foundational control, with clear separation between corporate IT, warehouse OT, operational devices, management networks, and externally connected systems. Segmentation should also extend across facilities and customer environments so that each site and customer integration is isolated from the others, limiting the potential impact of a compromise. A zero-trust approach should reinforce this architecture by requiring explicit authentication and authorization for connections between systems, regardless of their network location, and by applying least-privilege access wherever possible. Regular penetration testing of the corporate IT environment, including domain services, identity infrastructure, and endpoints, should be incorporated into the warehouse security program.

Physical and network access controls should be implemented together. Access to warehouse facilities, network rooms, communication cabinets, and operational areas should be restricted according to business need, with appropriate authentication, monitoring, and access logging. Network infrastructure should be hardened through controls such as switch port security, MAC-based access restrictions where appropriate, and IEEE 802.1X with EAP-TLS for strong device and user authentication. Network equipment should also be securely configured and regularly reviewed to ensure that unused interfaces, insecure management protocols, default credentials, and unnecessary services are disabled.

Web applications and their supporting infrastructure should be governed through a secure software development lifecycle (SSDLC), including security requirements, secure coding practices, code and dependency review, and application security assessment before deployment and throughout the application’s lifecycle. Third-party applications and components should be continuously monitored and updated, with a defined vulnerability and patch management process. This should explicitly include warehouse management systems (WMS), warehouse portals, APIs, and other applications that provide operational or customer-facing functionality.

Wireless technologies should be subject to dedicated security assessment and engineering. Radio-frequency surveys should be conducted to establish expected coverage, identify unauthorized or unexpected signals, validate the availability and protection of operational communications, and determine whether wireless deployments create unintended access paths into warehouse networks. Wireless security should be assessed not only from a connectivity perspective but also in terms of authentication, encryption, device provisioning, protocol exposure, interference resilience, and the potential impact of unauthorized devices.

Warehouse operational devices should be incorporated into the organization’s endpoint security and vulnerability management processes. Devices should receive security updates and firmware patches on a defined schedule, with accelerated remediation for critical vulnerabilities. Security assessments should be performed periodically to identify weaknesses in device configuration, applications, exposed services, and authentication mechanisms.

Personnel security should form an additional layer of the warehouse security architecture. In most industrial and ICS environments, getting inside means clearing background checks, holding relevant qualifications, or proving prior experience; the hiring process itself acts as a filter. A warehouse is different. Roles in sorting, packing, and courier work are hired quickly and in volume, and they typically require no prior expertise, certification, or specialized background at all. An ordinary person can walk in off the street, be hired within days, and immediately hold legitimate physical access to the facility. Therefore, a more restrictive and risk-based approach to hiring should be considered, particularly for roles that provide access to sensitive areas, operational systems, network infrastructure, or customer assets.

Ultimately, all of these measures serve the same objective: protecting the continuity and reliability of the warehouse as a whole. This matters because real warehouses handle food, medicines, machine parts, and the millions of ordinary things people and companies depend on every day. Protecting their journey means seeing the warehouse as it has actually become: a single digital system with doors, motors, shelving, and radio signals, and with entirely real consequences when it fails. And if the security program works, the customer never knows any of this happened. The unicorn simply arrives at the scheduled time.

If your warehouse operations rely on interconnected systems like these, we can help identify the gaps before an adversary does. Reach out to discuss a security assessment.

Intro

Windows Interprocess Communication (IPC) is one of the most complex technologies within the Windows operating system. At the core of this ecosystem is the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) mechanism, which can function as a standalone communication channel or as the underlying transport layer for more advanced interprocess communication technologies. Because of its complexity and widespread use, RPC has historically been a rich source of security issues. Over the years, researchers have identified numerous vulnerabilities in services that rely on RPC, ranging from local privilege escalation to full remote code execution.

In this research, I present a new vulnerability in the RPC architecture that enables a novel local privilege escalation technique likely in all Windows versions. This technique enables processes with impersonation privileges to elevate their permissions to SYSTEM level. Although this vulnerability differs fundamentally from the “Potato” exploit family, Microsoft has not issued a patch despite proper disclosure.

I will demonstrate five different exploitation paths that show how privileges can be escalated from various local or network service contexts to SYSTEM or high-privileged users. Some techniques rely on coercion, some require user interaction and some take advantage of background services. As this issue stems from an architectural weakness, the number of potential attack vectors is effectively unlimited; any new process or service that depends on RPC could introduce another possible escalation path. For this reason, I also outline a methodology for identifying such opportunities.

Finally, I examine possible detection strategies, as well as defensive approaches that can help mitigate such attacks.

MSRPC

Microsoft RPC (Remote Procedure Call) is a Windows technology that enables communication between two processes. It enables one process to invoke functions that are implemented in another process, even though they are running in different execution contexts.

The figure below illustrates this mechanism.

Let us assume that Host A is running two processes: Process A and Process B. Process B needs to execute a function that resides inside Process A. To enable this type of interaction, Windows provides the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) architecture, which follows a client–server model. In this model, Process A acts as the RPC server, exposing its functionality through an interface, in our example, Interface A. Each RPC interface is uniquely identified by a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), which is represented as a 128-bit value. This identifier enables the operating system to distinguish one interface from another.

The interface defines a set of functions that can be invoked remotely by the RPC client implemented in Process B. In our example, the interface exposes two functions: Fun1 and Fun2.

To communicate with the server, the RPC client must establish a connection through a communication endpoint. An endpoint represents the access point that enables transport between the client and the server. Because RPC supports multiple transport mechanisms, different endpoint types may exist, depending on the underlying transport.

For example:

• When TCP is used as the transport layer, the endpoint is a TCP port.
• When SMB is used, communication occurs through a named pipe.
• When ALPC is used, the endpoint is an ALPC port.

Each transport mechanism is associated with a specific RPC protocol sequence. For instance:

• ncacn_ip_tcp is used for RPC over TCP.
• ncacn_np is used for RPC over named pipes.
• ncalrpc is used for RPC over ALPC.

In this research, I focus specifically on Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) as the RPC transport mechanism. ALPC is a Windows interprocess communication mechanism that predates MSRPC. Today, RPC can leverage ALPC as an efficient transport layer for communication between processes located on the same machine.

For simplicity, an ALPC port can be thought of as a communication channel similar to a file, where processes can send messages by writing to it, and receive messages by reading from it.

When the client wants to invoke a remote function, for example, Fun1, it must construct an RPC request. This request includes several important pieces of information, such as the interface UUID, the protocol sequence, the endpoint, and the function identifier. In RPC, functions are not referenced by name, but by a numerical identifier called the operation number (OPNUM). Depending on the requirements of the call, the request may also contain additional structures, such as security-related information.

Impersonation in Windows

In Windows, impersonation enables a service to temporarily operate using another user’s security context. For example, a service may need to open a file that belongs to a user while performing a specific operation. By impersonating the calling user, the system allows the service to access that file, even if the service itself would not normally have permission to do so. You can read more about impersonation in James Forshaw’s book Windows Security Internals.

This research focuses specifically on RPC impersonation. Instead of describing the interaction as a service and a user, I refer to the participants as a client and a server. In this model, the RPC server may temporarily adopt the identity of the client that initiated the request.

To perform this operation, the RPC server can call the RpcImpersonateClient API, which causes the server thread to execute under the client’s security context.

However, in some situations, a client may not want the server to be able to impersonate its identity. To control this behavior, Windows introduces the concept of an impersonation level. This defines how much authority the client grants the server to act on its behalf.

These settings are defined as part of the Security Quality of Service (SQOS) parameters, specified using the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure.

As you can see, this structure contains the impersonation level field, which determines the extent to which the server can assume the client’s identity.

Impersonation levels range from Anonymous, where the server cannot impersonate the client at all, to Impersonate and Delegate, which allow the server to act fully on behalf of the client.

At the same time, not every server process is allowed to impersonate a client. If any process could perform impersonation freely, it would pose a serious security risk. To prevent this, Windows requires the server process to possess a specific privilege called SeImpersonatePrivilege. Only processes with this privilege can successfully impersonate a client.

This privilege is granted by default to certain service accounts, such as Local Service and Network Service.

Interaction between Group Policy service and TermService

The Group Policy Client service (gpsvc) is a core Windows service responsible for applying and enforcing group policy settings on a system. It runs under the SYSTEM account inside svchost.exe.

When a group policy update is triggered, Windows uses an executable called gpupdate.exe. This tool can be executed with the /force flag to force an immediate refresh of all group policy settings. Internally, this executable communicates with the Group Policy service, which coordinates the update process.

At a certain stage during this operation, the Group Policy service attempts to communicate with TermService (Terminal Service, the Remote Desktop Services service) using RPC.

TermService is responsible for providing remote desktop functionality. This service is not running by default and can be enabled manually by the administrator via activation of Remote Desktop access. When this happens, the service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. TermService runs under the NT AUTHORITY\Network Service account.

When the command gpupdate /force is executed, the Group Policy service performs an RPC call to the TermService using the following parameters:

• UUID: bde95fdf-eee0-45de-9e12-e5a61cd0d4fe.
• Endpoint: ncalrpc:[TermSrvApi].
• Function: void Proc8(int).

However, because TermService is disabled by default, the RPC call fails and an exception occurs in rpcrt4.dll (the RPC runtime). The returned error is:

• 0x800706BA (RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, 1722).

This error indicates that the RPC client could not reach the target server.

Tracing the failure path further reveals that the root cause originates from a call to NtAlpcConnectPort, which is used by RPC to establish an ALPC connection between processes.

The NtAlpcConnectPort function is responsible for connecting to a specific ALPC port and returning a handle that the client can use for further communication. This function accepts multiple parameters.

The first two parameters include:

• A pointer to the returned port handle.
• The ALPC port name, represented as an ASCII string.

Another important argument is PortAttributes, which is an ALPC_PORT_ATTRIBUTES structure. Inside this structure is the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure, which, as mentioned above, defines the impersonation level used for the connection.

The final parameter of interest is RequiredServerSid, which specifies the expected identity of the target server process. This identity is represented using a Security Identifier (SID) structure.

Inspecting this call reveals that the Group Policy service attempts to connect to the RPC server using an impersonation level of Impersonate, expecting the remote server to run under the Network Service account. This behavior makes sense because TermService normally runs under Network Service.

Based on all the information above, the following scheme can be created to illustrate the interaction between TermService and gpsvc.

Up to this point, nothing unusual has occurred. An RPC client attempts to connect to an RPC server that is unavailable, resulting in an exception handled by the RPC runtime.

However, an interesting question arises: What if an attacker compromises a service that runs under the Network Service identity and mimics the exact RPC server exposed by TermService?

Could the attacker deploy a fake RPC server with the same endpoint?

If so, would the RPC runtime allow the client to connect to this illegitimate server?

And if the connection is successful, how could an attacker leverage this behavior?

Coercing the Group Policy service

To better understand the implications of the previously described behavior, let us consider the following attack scenario.

Imagine an attacker has compromised a service running on the system under the Network Service account, for example, an IIS server operating under the Network Service account. With this level of access, the attacker can deploy a malicious RPC server.

The attacker’s RPC server is designed to mimic the RPC interface exposed by the Remote Desktop service (TermService). Specifically, it implements the same RPC interface UUID and exposes the same endpoint name: TermSrvApi. Once deployed, the malicious server listens for RPC requests that would normally be directed to the legitimate RDP service.

Next, the attacker coerces the Group Policy service by triggering a policy update using gpupdate.exe /force. This causes the Group Policy Client service, which runs under the SYSTEM account, to perform the previously described RPC call. As observed earlier, this RPC call uses a high impersonation level (Impersonate).

When the attacker’s fake RPC server receives the request, it calls RpcImpersonateClient. This enables the server thread to impersonate the security context of the calling client, which, in this case, is SYSTEM.

As a result, the attacker can elevate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM. In our proof-of-concept implementation, the exploit demonstrates privilege escalation by spawning a SYSTEM-level command prompt.

When this attack scenario was first discussed, it was purely theoretical. However, after implementing the malicious RPC server, the experiment confirmed that Windows allowed the server to be deployed and started successfully, and that the RPC runtime permitted the client to connect to the malicious endpoint. This made it possible to reliably escalate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM using this technique. For this attack to succeed, though, at least one group policy must be applied on the system.

RPC architecture flow

Further investigation revealed that many Windows services attempt to communicate with TermService using RPC. These RPC calls often originate from winsta.dll, which acts as the RPC client component.

Windows processes invoke APIs exposed by winsta.dll; these APIs rely internally on RPC communication with TermService. This pattern is common in Windows; many system DLLs use RPC behind the scenes when their exported APIs are called.

However, it appears that the RPC runtime (rpcrt4.dll) does not provide a mechanism to verify the legitimacy of RPC servers. Moreover, Windows allows another process to deploy an RPC server that exposes the same endpoint as a legitimate service.

As a result, this architectural design introduces a large attack surface because RPC is heavily used across numerous system DLLs. Applications that invoke seemingly benign APIs may unintentionally trigger privileged RPC interactions. Under certain conditions, these interactions could be abused to achieve local privilege escalation without the user’s knowledge.

Identifying RPC calls to unavailable servers

As the issue appears to stem from an architectural weakness, a systematic approach is needed to identify RPC clients attempting to communicate with servers that are unavailable. First, I need a platform capable of monitoring RPC activity and extracting relevant information from each RPC request.

Specifically, I need to capture key RPC metadata, including:

• Interface UUID, endpoint, and OPNUM.
• Impersonation level and RPC status code.
• Client process privilege level, process name, and module path.

This information is critical because it enables me to reconstruct the RPC interaction, mimic the expected RPC server, and determine how the call is triggered.

The platform that provides this capability is Event Tracing for Windows (ETW). ETW is a built-in Windows logging framework that captures both kernel-mode and user-mode events in real time.

Windows provides a tool called logman to collect ETW data. It enables us to create trace sessions, select event providers, and configure the verbosity level of the tracing process. The collected tracing data is stored in an .etl file, which can later be analyzed using tools such as Event Viewer or other ETW analysis utilities.

ETW provides deep visibility into RPC activity without requiring modifications to applications. Through ETW, it is possible to capture detailed RPC information, such as:

• RPC bindings
• Endpoints
• Interface UUIDs
• Authentication details
• Call flow and timing
• RPC status codes

However, I’m not interested in every RPC event. My focus is on RPC call failures, specifically those that return the status RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE.

For an event to be relevant to this research, the exception must meet two conditions:

• It must originate from a high-privileged process because impersonating such a process may allow an attacker to escalate privileges to a more powerful security context.
• The RPC call must use a high impersonation level, enabling the server to fully impersonate the client once the connection is established.

I cannot rely solely on the raw ETW output to implement this framework because it contains thousands of events, making manual filtering with standard tools inefficient. Therefore, I need to automate this process. The workflow shown below enables me to efficiently filter and extract only those events that are relevant to this analysis.

After generating the logs as an .etl file, I convert them to JSON format using tools such as etw2json. JSON is a much easier format to process programmatically. In this case, I use a Python script to filter and extract the relevant information.

The filtering process begins with a search for Event ID 1, which corresponds to an RPC stop event. This event indicates that the RPC client has completed the call and the result is available. From this event, I can extract useful information, such as:

• Status code
• Client process name
• Client process ID
• Endpoint

After extracting the status code, I filter for the specific value RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, which indicates that the target server was unreachable during an RPC call. These events represent the scenarios that are of interest.

However, Event ID 1 does not contain all of the required RPC metadata. To obtain the missing information, it is correlated with Event ID 5, which represents the RPC start event. This event is generated when the client initiates the RPC call.

By matching the metadata between Event ID 1 and Event ID 5, I can recover the missing details, including:

• Interface UUID
• OPNUM
• Impersonation level

After correlating and filtering these events, a JSON entry is obtained that is almost ready for analysis. At this stage, the data can be enriched further by adding context that will be helpful when reversing or analyzing the RPC server implementation. For example, the following can be identified:

• The DLL where the RPC interface is implemented
• The location of that DLL
• The number of procedures exposed by the interface

To retrieve this information, I match the UUID with an external RPC interface database. In this case, I used the RPC database, which contains a comprehensive list of RPC interfaces and their corresponding DLL implementations.

At the end of this process, a complete JSON dataset is obtained that can be used for further analysis.

One important observation is that the RPC calls I am looking for may only occur when specific system actions are triggered. Additionally, the resulting exceptions may vary from one system to another depending on which services are enabled or disabled. Therefore, I need a reliable way to generate these RPC exceptions.

In this research, I used several approaches to trigger such events:

1. Monitoring RPC activity during system startup
   I observed RPC activity while the system booted. During startup, many services initialize and perform various RPC calls, which increases the chances of capturing calls to unavailable servers.
2. Triggering administrative operations
   I developed PowerShell scripts that perform common administrative tasks, such as updating Group Policy, changing network settings, or creating new users. These operations often trigger RPC communication and may generate exceptions.
3. Disabling services intentionally
   After observing that Remote Desktop was disabled by default, I extended this idea by disabling additional services one by one and repeating the previous steps. This approach can reveal RPC clients that attempt to connect to services that are no longer available.

Additional privilege escalation paths

After running the logging and monitoring framework described earlier, I identified four additional scenarios that can lead to privilege escalation. The following sections introduce each case and explain how escalation can be achieved.

User interaction: From Edge to RDP

Microsoft Edge (msedge.exe) comes preinstalled on Windows systems. During startup, Edge triggers an RPC call to TermService. This RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level.

As previously discussed, Terminal Service is disabled by default. Because of this, the expected RPC server is unavailable, creating an opportunity for the attack scenario illustrated below.

The attack follows the same initial assumption as before: the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Network Service account. From there, they deploy the same malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate TermService RPC interface.

However, unlike the previous scenario where the attacker coerced the Group Policy service, no coercion is required this time. Instead, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to launch msedge.exe.

When Edge starts, it triggers the RPC client to attempt communication with the expected TermService RPC interface. Because the legitimate server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Since the RPC call is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client process.

As a result, the attacker is able to impersonate the administrator-level client and escalate privileges from Network Service to Administrator.

Background services: From WDI to RDP

Some background Windows services periodically attempt to make RPC calls to the RDP service without user interaction. One such service is the WdiSystemHost service. The Diagnostic System Host Service (WDI) is a built-in Windows service that runs system diagnostics and performs troubleshooting tasks. This service runs under the SYSTEM account.

During normal operation, WDI periodically performs background RPC calls to the Remote Desktop service (TermService) using a high impersonation level. These RPC interactions occur automatically every 5–15 minutes and do not require any user input.

This behavior can be abused in a similar manner to the previous attack scenarios, as illustrated in the figure below.

In this case, however, no user interaction or coercion is required. After deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the expected TermService RPC interface, the attacker only needs to wait for the WDI service to perform its periodic RPC call. Because the request is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can invoke RpcImpersonateClient and impersonate the calling process. This enables the attacker to escalate privileges to SYSTEM.

Abusing the Local Service account: From ipconfig to DHCP

Another scenario involves the DHCP Client service, which manages DHCP client operations on Windows systems. This service runs under the Local Service account and is enabled by default.

The DHCP Client service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. These interfaces are frequently invoked by various system DLLs, often using a high impersonation level.

In this scenario, instead of compromising a process running under Network Service, it is assumed the attacker has compromised a process running under the Local Service account. I also assume that the DHCP Client service is disabled, meaning the legitimate RPC server is unavailable.

As the figure below illustrates, the attacker can leverage this situation to escalate privileges.

After gaining control of a Local Service process, the attacker deploys a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC server normally exposed by the DHCP Client service. Once the malicious server is running, the attacker waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute ipconfig.exe.

When ipconfig is run, it internally triggers an RPC request to the DHCP Client service. Since the legitimate RPC server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Because the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client.

As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.

Abusing Time

The Windows Time service (W32Time) is responsible for maintaining date and time synchronization across systems in a Windows environment. This service is enabled by default and runs under the Local Service account.

The service exposes an RPC server with two endpoints:

• \PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
• \RPC Control\W32TIME_ALT

The executable C:\Windows\System32\w32tm.exe interacts with the Windows Time service through RPC. However, before connecting to the valid RPC endpoints exposed by the service, the executable first attempts to access the nonexistent named pipe: \PIPE\W32TIME. This named pipe is not exposed by the legitimate W32Time service. However, if this endpoint were available, w32tm.exe would attempt to connect to it.

An attacker can abuse this behavior by deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC interface of the Windows Time service. Rather than exposing the legitimate endpoints, the attacker’s server exposes the nonexistent endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME, as shown in the figure below.

As in the previous scenarios, it is assumed the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Local Service account. The attacker then deploys a fake RPC server that implements the same RPC interface as the Windows Time service, but which exposes the alternative endpoint used by w32tm.exe.

Once the malicious server is running, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute w32tm.exe. When the executable runs, it attempts to connect to the endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME. Because the attacker’s fake server exposes this endpoint, the RPC request is directed to the malicious server.

Since the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can impersonate the calling client. As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.

In this scenario, it is important to note that the legitimate Windows Time service does not need to be disabled. Because the executable attempts to connect to a nonexistent endpoint, it is sufficient for the attacker to expose that endpoint through the malicious RPC server.

Vulnerability disclosure

After discovering the vulnerability, Kaspersky Security Services prepared a 10-page technical report describing the issue and the various aforementioned exploitation scenarios. The report was submitted to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) to report the vulnerability and request a fix.

Twenty days later, Microsoft responded, indicating that they did not classify the vulnerability as high severity. According to their assessment, the issue was classified as moderate severity and would therefore not be patched immediately. No CVE would be assigned, and the case would be closed without further tracking.

Microsoft explained that the moderate severity classification was due to the requirement that the originating process had to already possess the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege. Since this privilege was typically required for the attack to succeed, Microsoft determined that the issue did not require immediate remediation.

Kaspersky Security Services respect Microsoft’s assessment and only published the research after the embargo period ends. In line with the coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy, Kaspersky Security Services will refrain from publishing detailed instructions that could enable or accelerate mass exploitation.

The disclosure timeline is shown below:

• 2025-09-19: Vulnerability reported to Microsoft Security Response Center (Case 101749).
• 2025-10-10: MSRC response – the case was assessed as moderate severity, not eligible for a bounty, no CVE was issued, and the case was closed without further tracking.
• 2026-04-24: expected whitepaper publication date.

Detection and defense

As discussed above, this vulnerability is related to an architectural design behavior. Fully preventing it would require Microsoft to release a patch that addresses the underlying issue.

Nevertheless, organizations can still take steps to detect and mitigate potential abuse. ETW-based monitoring within the framework described above enables defenders to identify RPC exceptions in their environment, especially when RPC clients attempt to connect to unavailable servers.

I have provide the tools used in the previously described framework so that organizations can check their environment for such behavior. You can find all of them in the research repository.

By monitoring these events, administrators can identify situations where legitimate RPC servers are expected but not running. In some cases, the attack surface may be reduced by enabling the corresponding services, ensuring that the legitimate RPC server is available. This can hinder attackers from deploying malicious RPC servers that imitate legitimate endpoints.

It is also good practice to reduce the use of the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege in processes where it is not required. Some system processes need this privilege for normal operations. However, granting it to custom processes is generally not considered good security practice.

Conclusion

All the exploits described in this research were tested on Windows Server 2022 and Windows Server 2025 with the latest available updates prior to the submission date. The proof-of-concept implementations can be found in the research repository. However, it is highly likely that this issue may also be exploitable on other Windows versions.

Because the vulnerability stems from an architectural design issue, there may be additional attack scenarios beyond those presented in this research. The exact exploitation paths may vary from one system to another depending on factors such as installed software, the DLLs involved in RPC communication, and the availability of corresponding RPC servers.

Introduction

If you’re a penetration tester, you know that lateral movement is becoming increasingly difficult, especially in well-defended environments. One common technique for remote command execution has been the use of DCOM objects.

Over the years, many different DCOM objects have been discovered. Some rely on native Windows components, others depend on third-party software such as Microsoft Office, and some are undocumented objects found through reverse engineering. While certain objects still work, others no longer function in newer versions of Windows.

This research presents a previously undescribed DCOM object that can be used for both command execution and potential persistence. This new technique abuses older initial access and persistence methods through Control Panel items.

First, we will discuss COM technology. After that, we will review the current state of the Impacket dcomexec script, focusing on objects that still function, and discuss potential fixes and improvements, then move on to techniques for enumerating objects on the system. Next, we will examine Control Panel items, how adversaries have used them for initial access and persistence, and how these items can be leveraged through a DCOM object to achieve command execution.

Finally, we will cover detection strategies to identify and respond to this type of activity.

COM/DCOM technology

What is COM?

COM stands for Component Object Model, a Microsoft technology that defines a binary standard for interoperability. It enables the creation of reusable software components that can interact at runtime without the need to compile COM libraries directly into an application.

These software components operate in a client–server model. A COM object exposes its functionality through one or more interfaces. An interface is essentially a collection of related member functions (methods).

COM also enables communication between processes running on the same machine by using local RPC (Remote Procedure Call) to handle cross-process communication.

Terms

To ensure a better understanding of its structure and functionality, let’s revise COM-related terminology.

1. COM interface
   A COM interface defines the functionality that a COM object exposes. Each COM interface is identified by a unique GUID known as the IID (Interface ID). All COM interfaces can be found in the Windows Registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Interface, where they are organized by GUID.
2. COM class (COM CoClass)
   A COM class is the actual implementation of one or more COM interfaces. Like COM interfaces, classes are identified by unique GUIDs, but in this case the GUID is called the CLSID (Class ID). This GUID is used to locate the COM server and activate the corresponding COM class.

   All COM classes must be registered in the registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID, where each class’s GUID is stored. Under each GUID, you may find multiple subkeys that serve different purposes, such as:

   • InprocServer32/LocalServer32: Specifies the system path of the COM server where the class is defined. InprocServer32 is used for in-process servers (DLLs), while LocalServer32 is used for out-of-process servers (EXEs). We’ll describe this in more detail later.
   • ProgID: A human-readable name assigned to the COM class.
   • TypeLib: A binary description of the COM class (essentially documentation for the class).
   • AppID: Used to describe security configuration for the class.
3. COM server
   A COM is the module where a COM class is defined. The server can be implemented as an EXE, in which case it is called an out-of-process server, or as a DLL, in which case it is called an in-process server. Each COM server has a unique file path or location in the system. Information about COM servers is stored in the Windows Registry. The COM runtime uses the registry to locate the server and perform further actions. Registry entries for COM servers are located under the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT root key for both 32- and 64-bit servers.

Client–server model

1. In-process server
   In the case of an in-process server, the server is implemented as a DLL. The client loads this DLL into its own address space and directly executes functions exposed by the COM object. This approach is efficient since both client and server run within the same process.
   

   In-process COM server

2. Out-of-process server
   Here, the server is implemented and compiled as an executable (EXE). Since the client cannot load an EXE into its address space, the server runs in its own process, separate from the client. Communication between the two processes is handled via ALPC (Advanced Local Procedure Call) ports, which serve as the RPC transport layer for COM.

What is DCOM?

DCOM is an extension of COM where the D stands for Distributed. It enables the client and server to reside on different machines. From the user’s perspective, there is no difference: DCOM provides an abstraction layer that makes both the client and the server appear as if they are on the same machine.

Under the hood, however, COM uses TCP as the RPC transport layer to enable communication across machines.

Certain requirements must be met to extend a COM object into a DCOM object. The most important one for our research is the presence of the AppID subkey in the registry, located under the COM CLSID entry.

The AppID value contains a GUID that maps to a corresponding key under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AppID. Several subkeys may exist under this GUID. Two critical ones are:

• AccessPermission: controls access permissions.
• LaunchPermission: controls activation permissions.

These registry settings grant remote clients permissions to activate and interact with DCOM objects.

Lateral movement via DCOM

After attackers compromise a host, their next objective is often to compromise additional machines. This is what we call lateral movement. One common lateral movement technique is to achieve remote command execution on a target machine. There are many ways to do this, one of which involves abusing DCOM objects.

In recent years, many DCOM objects have been discovered. This research focuses on the objects exposed by the Impacket script dcomexec.py that can be used for command execution. More specifically, three exposed objects are used: ShellWindows, ShellBrowserWindow and MMC20.

1. ShellWindows
   ShellWindows was one of the first DCOM objects to be identified. It represents a collection of open shell windows and is hosted by explorer.exe, meaning any COM client communicates with that process.

   In Impacket’s dcomexec.py, once an instance of this COM object is created on a remote machine, the script provides a semi-interactive shell.

   Each time a user enters a command, the function exposed by the COM object is called. The command output is redirected to a file, which the script retrieves via SMB and displays back to simulate a regular shell.

   Internally, the script runs this command when connecting:

   cmd.exe /Q /c cd \ 1> \\127.0.0.1\ADMIN$\__17602 2>&1

   This sets the working directory to C:\ and redirects the output to the ADMIN$ share under the filename __17602. After that, the script checks whether the file exists; if it does, execution is considered successful and the output appears as if in a shell.

   When running dcomexec.py against Windows 10 and 11 using the ShellWindows object, the script hangs after confirming SMB connection initialization and printing the SMB banner. As I mentioned in my personal blog post, it appears that this DCOM object no longer has permission to write to the ADMIN$ share. A simple fix is to redirect the output to a directory the DCOM object can write to, such as the Temp folder. The Temp folder can then be accessed under the same ADMIN$ share. A small change in the code resolves the issue. For example:

   OUTPUT_FILENAME = 'Temp\\__' + str(time.time())[:5]

2. ShellBrowserWindow
   The ShellBrowserWindow object behaves almost identically to ShellWindows and exhibits the same behavior on Windows 10. The same workaround that we used for ShellWindows applies in this case. However, on Windows 11, this object no longer works for command execution.
3. MMC20
   The MMC20.Application COM object is the automation interface for Microsoft Management Console (MMC). It exposes methods and properties that allow MMC snap-ins to be automated.

   This object has historically worked across all Windows versions. Starting with Windows Server 2025, however, attempting to use it triggers a Defender alert, and execution is blocked.

   As shown in earlier examples, the dcomexec.py script writes the command output to a file under ADMIN$, with a filename that begins with __:

   OUTPUT_FILENAME = '__' + str(time.time())[:5]

   Defender appears to check for files written under ADMIN$ that start with __, and when it detects one, it blocks the process and alerts the user. A quick fix is to simply remove the double underscores from the output filename.

   Another way to bypass this issue is to use the same workaround used for ShellWindows – redirecting the output to the Temp folder. The table below outlines the status of these objects across different Windows versions.

   	Windows Server 2025	Windows Server 2022	Windows 11	Windows 10
   ShellWindows	Doesn’t work	Doesn’t work	Works but needs a fix	Works but needs a fix
   ShellBrowserWindow	Doesn’t work	Doesn’t work	Doesn’t work	Works but needs a fix
   MMC20	Detected by Defender	Works	Works	Works

Enumerating COM/DCOM objects

The first step to identifying which DCOM objects could be used for lateral movement is to enumerate them. By enumerating, I don’t just mean listing the objects. Enumeration involves:

• Finding objects and filtering specifically for DCOM objects.
• Identifying their interfaces.
• Inspecting the exposed functions.

Automating enumeration is difficult because most COM objects lack a type library (TypeLib). A TypeLib acts as documentation for an object: which interfaces it supports, which functions are exposed, and the definitions of those functions. Even when TypeLibs are available, manual inspection is often still required, as we will explain later.

There are several approaches to enumerating COM objects depending on their use cases. Next, we’ll describe the methods I used while conducting this research, taking into account both automated and manual methods.

1. Automation using PowerShell
   In PowerShell, you can use .NET to create and interact with DCOM objects. Objects can be created using either their ProgID or CLSID, after which you can call their functions (as shown in the figure below).
   

   Shell.Application COM object function list in PowerShell

   Under the hood, PowerShell checks whether the COM object has a TypeLib and implements the IDispatch interface. IDispatch enables late binding, which allows runtime dynamic object creation and function invocation. With these two conditions met, PowerShell can dynamically interact with COM objects at runtime.

   Our strategy looks like this:

   

   As you can see in the last box, we perform manual inspection to look for functions with names that could be of interest, such as Execute, Exec, Shell, etc. These names often indicate potential command execution capabilities.

   However, this approach has several limitations:

   • TypeLib requirement: Not all COM objects have a TypeLib, so many objects cannot be enumerated this way.
   • IDispatch requirement: Not all COM objects implement the IDispatch interface, which is required for PowerShell interaction.
   • Interface control: When you instantiate an object in PowerShell, you cannot choose which interface the instance will be tied to. If a COM class implements multiple interfaces, PowerShell will automatically select the one marked as [default] in the TypeLib. This means that other non-default interfaces, which may contain additional relevant functionality, such as command execution, could be overlooked.
2. Automation using C++
   As you might expect, C++ is one of the languages that natively supports COM clients. Using C++, you can create instances of COM objects and call their functions via header files that define the interfaces.However, with this approach, we are not necessarily interested in calling functions directly. Instead, the goal is to check whether a specific COM object supports certain interfaces. The reasoning is that many interfaces have been found to contain functions that can be abused for command execution or other purposes.

   This strategy primarily relies on an interface called IUnknown. All COM interfaces should inherit from this interface, and all COM classes should implement it.The IUnknown interface exposes three main functions. The most important is QueryInterface(), which is used to ask a COM object for a pointer to one of its interfaces.So, the strategy is to:

   • Enumerate COM classes in the system by reading CLSIDs under the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID key.
   • Check whether they support any known valuable interfaces. If they do, those classes may be leveraged for command execution or other useful functionality.

   This method has several advantages:

   • No TypeLib dependency: Unlike PowerShell, this approach does not require the COM object to have a TypeLib.
   • Use of IUnknown: In C++, you can use the QueryInterface function from the base IUnknown interface to check if a particular interface is supported by a COM class.
   • No need for interface definitions: Even without knowing the exact interface structure, you can obtain a pointer to its virtual function table (vtable), typically cast as a void*. This is enough to confirm the existence of the interface and potentially inspect it further.

   The figure below illustrates this strategy:

   

   This approach is good in terms of automation because it eliminates the need for manual inspection. However, we are still only checking well-known interfaces commonly used for lateral movement, while potentially missing others.

3. Manual inspection using open-source tools
   As you can see, automation can be difficult since it requires several prerequisites and, in many cases, still ends with a manual inspection. An alternative approach is manual inspection using a tool called OleViewDotNet, developed by James Forshaw. This tool allows you to:
   • List all COM classes in the system.
   • Create instances of those classes.
   • Check their supported interfaces.
   • Call specific functions.
   • Apply various filters for easier analysis.
   • Perform other inspection tasks.
   

   Open-source tool for inspecting COM interfaces

   One of the most valuable features of this tool is its naming visibility. OleViewDotNet extracts the names of interfaces and classes (when available) from the Windows Registry and displays them, along with any associated type libraries.

   This makes manual inspection easier, since you can analyze the names of classes, interfaces, or type libraries and correlate them with potentially interesting functionality, for example, functions that could lead to command execution or persistence techniques.

Control Panel items as attack surfaces

Control Panel items allow users to view and adjust their computer settings. These items are implemented as DLLs that export the CPlApplet function and typically have the .cpl extension. Control Panel items can also be executables, but our research will focus on DLLs only.

Attackers can abuse CPL files for initial access. When a user executes a malicious .cpl file (e.g., delivered via phishing), the system may be compromised – a technique mapped to MITRE ATT&CK T1218.002.

Adversaries may also modify the extensions of malicious DLLs to .cpl and register them in the corresponding locations in the registry.

• Under HKEY_CURRENT_USER:
  HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls

• Under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE:
  • For 64-bit DLLs:
    HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls
  • For 32-bit DLLs:
    HKLM\Software\WOW6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls

These locations are important when Control Panel DLLs need to be available to the current logged-in user or to all users on the machine. However, the “Control Panel” subkey and its “Cpls” subkey under HKCU should be created manually, unlike the “Control Panel” and “Cpls” subkeys under HKLM, which are created automatically by the operating system.

Once registered, the DLL (CPL file) will load every time the Control Panel is opened, enabling persistence on the victim’s system.

It’s worth noting that even DLLs that do not comply with the CPL specification, do not export CPlApplet, or do not have the .cpl extension can still be executed via their DllEntryPoint function if they are registered under the registry keys listed above.

There are multiple ways to execute Control Panel items:

• From cmd: control.exe [filename].cpl
• By double-clicking the .cpl file.

Both methods use rundll32.exe under the hood:

rundll32.exe shell32.dll,Control_RunDLL [filename].cpl

This calls the Control_RunDLL function from shell32.dll, passing the CPL file as an argument. Everything inside the CPlApplet function will then be executed.

However, if the CPL file has been registered in the registry as shown earlier, then every time the Control Panel is opened, the file is loaded into memory through the COM Surrogate process (dllhost.exe):

What happened was that a Control Panel with a COM client used a COM object to load these CPL files. We will talk about this COM object in more detail later.

The COM Surrogate process was designed to host COM server DLLs in a separate process rather than loading them directly into the client process’s address space. This isolation improves stability for the in-process server model. This hosting behavior can be configured for a COM object in the registry if you want a COM server DLL to run inside a separate process because, by default, it is loaded in the same process.

‘DCOMing’ through Control Panel items

While following the manual approach of enumerating COM/DCOM objects that could be useful for lateral movement, I came across a COM object called COpenControlPanel, which is exposed through shell32.dll and has the CLSID {06622D85-6856-4460-8DE1-A81921B41C4B}. This object exposes multiple interfaces, one of which is IOpenControlPanel with IID {D11AD862-66DE-4DF4-BF6C-1F5621996AF1}.

I immediately thought of its potential to compromise Control Panel items, so I wanted to check which functions were exposed by this interface. Unfortunately, neither the interface nor the COM class has a type library.

Normally, checking the interface definition would require reverse engineering, so at first, it looked like we needed to take a different research path. However, it turned out that the IOpenControlPanel interface is documented on MSDN, and according to the documentation, it exposes several functions. One of them, called Open, allows a specified Control Panel item to be opened using its name as the first argument.

Full type and function definitions are provided in the shobjidl_core.h Windows header file.

It’s worth noting that in newer versions of Windows (e.g., Windows Server 2025 and Windows 11), Microsoft has removed interface names from the registry, which means they can no longer be identified through OleViewDotNet.

Returning to the COpenControlPanel COM object, I found that the Open function can trigger a DLL to be loaded into memory if it has been registered in the registry. For the purposes of this research, I created a DLL that basically just spawns a message box which is defined under the DllEntryPoint function. I registered it under HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls and then created a simple C++ COM client to call the Open function on this interface.

As expected, the DLL was loaded into memory. It was hosted in the same way that it would be if the Control Panel itself was opened: through the COM Surrogate process (dllhost.exe). Using Process Explorer, it was clear that dllhost.exe loaded my DLL while simultaneously hosting the COpenControlPanel object along with other COM objects.

Based on my testing, I made the following observations:

1. The DLL that needs to be registered does not necessarily have to be a .cpl file; any DLL with a valid entry point will be loaded.
2. The Open() function accepts the name of a Control Panel item as its first argument. However, it appears that even if a random string is supplied, it still causes all DLLs registered in the relevant registry location to be loaded into memory.

Now, what if we could trigger this COM object remotely? In other words, what if it is not just a COM object but also a DCOM object? To verify this, we checked the AppID of the COpenControlPanel object using OleViewDotNet.

Both the launch and access permissions are empty, which means the object will follow the system’s default DCOM security policy. By default, members of the Administrators group are allowed to launch and access the DCOM object.

Based on this, we can build a remote strategy. First, upload the “malicious” DLL, then use the Remote Registry service to register it in the appropriate registry location. Finally, use a trigger acting as a DCOM client to remotely invoke the Open() function, causing our DLL to be loaded. The diagram below illustrates the flow of this approach.

The trigger can be written in either C++ or Python, for example, using Impacket. I chose Python because of its flexibility. The trigger itself is straightforward: we define the DCOM class, the interface, and the function to call. The full code example can be found here.

Once the trigger runs, the behavior will be the same as when executing the COM client locally: our DLL will be loaded through the COM Surrogate process (dllhost.exe).

As you can see, this technique not only achieves command execution but also provides persistence. It can be triggered in two ways: when a user opens the Control Panel or remotely at any time via DCOM.

Detection

The first step in detecting such activity is to check whether any Control Panel items have been registered under the following registry paths:

• HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls
• HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls
• HKLM\Software\WOW6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls

Although commonly known best practices and research papers regarding Windows security advise monitoring only the first subkey, for thorough coverage it is important to monitor all of the above.

In addition, monitoring dllhost.exe (COM Surrogate) for unusual COM objects such as COpenControlPanel can provide indicators of malicious activity.
Finally, it is always recommended to monitor Remote Registry usage because it is commonly abused in many types of attacks, not just in this scenario.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I hope this research has clarified yet another attack vector and emphasized the importance of implementing hardening practices. Below are a few closing points for security researchers to take into account:

• As shown, DCOM represents a large attack surface. Windows exposes many DCOM classes, a significant number of which lack type libraries – meaning reverse engineering can reveal additional classes that may be abused for lateral movement.
• Changing registry values to register malicious CPLs is not good practice from a red teaming ethics perspective. Defender products tend to monitor common persistence paths, but Control Panel applets can be registered in multiple registry locations, so there is always a gap that can be exploited.
• Bitness also matters. On x64 systems, loading a 32-bit DLL will spawn a 32-bit COM Surrogate process (dllhost.exe *32). This is unusual on 64-bit hosts and therefore serves as a useful detection signal for defenders and an interesting red flag for red teamers to consider.