Capturing and Visualizing Office 365 Security Logs – Part 2

Capturing and Visualizing Office 365 Security Logs – Part 2

Hello again my fellow geeks.

Welcome to part two of my series on visualizing Office 365 security logs.  In my last post I walked through the process of getting the sign-in and security logs and provided a link to some Lambda’s I put together to automate pulling them down from Microsoft Graph.  Recall that the Lambda stores the files in raw format (with a small bit of transformation on the time stamps) into Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service).  For this demonstration I modified the parameters for the Lambda to download the 30 days of the sign-in logs and to store them in an S3 bucket I use for blog demos.

When the logs are pulled from  Microsoft Graph they come down in JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format.  Love JSON or hate it is the common standard for exchanging information these days.  The schema for the JSON representation of the sign-in logs is fairly complex and very nested because there is a ton of great information in there.  Thankfully Microsoft has done a wonderful job of documenting the schema.  Now that we have the logs and the schema we can start working with the data.

When I first started this effort I had put together a Python function which transformed the files into a CSV using pipe delimiters.  As soon as I finished the function I wondered if there was an alternative way to handle it.  In comes Amazon Athena to the rescue with its Openx-JsonSerDe library.  After reading through a few blogs (great AWS blog here), StackOverflow posts, and the official AWS documentation I was ready to put something together myself.  After some trial and error I put together a working DDL (Data Definition Language) statement for the data structure.  I’ve made the DDLs available on Github.

Once I had the schema defined, I created the table in Athena.  The official AWS documentation does a fine job explaining the few clicks that are provided to create a table, so I won’t re-create that here.  The DDLs I’ve provided you above will make it a quick and painless process for you.

Let’s review what we’ve done so far.  We’ve setup a reoccurring job that is pulling the sign-in and audit logs via the API and is dumping all that juicy data into cheap object storage which we can further enforce lifecycle policies for.  We’ve then defined the schema for the data and have made it available via standard SQL queries.  All without provisioning a server and for pennies on the dollar.  Not to shabby!

At this point you can use your analytics tool of choice whether it be QuickSight, Tableau, PowerBi, or the many other tools that have flooded the market over the past few years.  Since I don’t make any revenue from these blog posts, I like to go the cheap and easy route of using Amazon QuickSight.

After completing the initial setup of QuickSight I was ready to go.  The next step was to create a new data set.  For that I clicked the Manage Data button and selected New Data Set.

Screen Shot 2019-01-31 at 8.57.15 PM.png

On the Create a Data Set screen I selected the Athena option and created a name for the data source.

screenshot2019-01-31at9.01.48pm

From there I selected the database in Athena which for me was named azuread.  The tables within the database are then populated and I chose the tbl_signin_demo which points to the test S3 bucket I mentioned previously.

Screen Shot 2019-01-31 at 9.04.22 PM.png

Due to the complexity of the data structure I opted to use a custom SQL query.  There is no reason why you couldn’t create the table I’m about to create in Athena and then connect to that table instead to make it more consumable for a wider array of users.  It’s really up to you and I honestly don’t know what the appropriate “big data” way of doing it is.  Either way, those of you with real SQL skills may want to look away from this query lest you experience a Raiders of The Lost Ark moment.

indianjones

You were warned.

SELECT records.id, records.createddatetime, records.userprincipalname, records.userDisplayName, records.userid, records.appid, records.appdisplayname, records.ipaddress, records.clientappused, records.mfadetail.authdetail AS mfadetail_authdetail, records.mfadetail.authmethod AS mfadetail_authmethod, records.correlationid, records.conditionalaccessstatus, records.appliedconditionalaccesspolicy.displayname AS cap_displayname, array_join(records.appliedconditionalaccesspolicy.enforcedgrantcontrols,' ') AS cap_enforcedgrantcontrols, array_join(records.appliedconditionalaccesspolicy.enforcedsessioncontrols,' ') AS cap_enforcedsessioncontrols, records.appliedconditionalaccesspolicy.id AS cap_id, records.appliedconditionalaccesspolicy.result AS cap_result, records.originalrequestid, records.isinteractive, records.tokenissuername, records.tokenissuertype, records.devicedetail.browser AS device_browser, records.devicedetail.deviceid AS device_id, records.devicedetail.iscompliant AS device_iscompliant, records.devicedetail.ismanaged AS device_ismanaged, records.devicedetail.operatingsystem AS device_os, records.devicedetail.trusttype AS device_trusttype,records.location.city AS location_city, records.location.countryorregion AS location_countryorregion, records.location.geocoordinates.altitude, records.location.geocoordinates.latitude, records.location.geocoordinates.longitude,records.location.state AS location_state, records.riskdetail, records.risklevelaggregated, records.risklevelduringsignin, records.riskstate, records.riskeventtypes, records.resourcedisplayname, records.resourceid, records.authenticationmethodsused, records.status.additionaldetails, records.status.errorcode, records.status.failurereason  FROM "azuread"."tbl_signin_demo" CROSS JOIN (UNNEST(value) as t(records))

This query will de-nest the data and give you a detailed (possibly extremely large depending on how much data you are storing) parsed table. I was now ready to create some data visualizations.

The first visual I made was a geospatial visual using the location data included in the logs filtered to failed logins. Not surprisingly our friends in China have shown a real interest in my and my wife’s Office 365 accounts.

screenshot2019-01-31at9.26.24pm

Next up I was interested in seeing if there were any patterns in the frequency of the failed logins.  For that I created a simple line chart showing the number of failed logins per user account in my tenant.  Interestingly enough the new year meant back to work for more than just you and me.

screenshot2019-01-31at9.28.45pm

Like I mentioned earlier Microsoft provides a ton of great detail in the sign-in logs.  Beyond just location, they also provide reasons for login failures.  I next created a stacked bar chat to show the different reasons for failed logs by user.  I found the blocked sign-ins by malicious IPs interesting.  It’s nice to know that is being tracked and taken care of.

screenshot2019-01-31at9.31.24pm

Failed logins are great, but the other thing I was interested in is successful logins and user behavior.  For this I created a vertical stacked bar chart that displayed the successful logins by user by device operating system (yet more great data captured in the logs).  You can tell from the bar on the right my wife is a fan of her Mac!

screenshot2019-01-31at9.38.02pm

As I gather more data I plan on creating some more visuals, but this was great to start.  The geo-spatial one is my favorite.  If you have access to a larger data set with a diverse set of users your data should prove fascinating.  Definitely share any graphs or interesting data points you end up putting together if you opt to do some of this analysis yourself.  I’d love some new ideas!

That will wrap up this series.  As you’ve seen the modern tool sets available to you now can do some amazing things for cheap without forcing you to maintain the infrastructure behind it.  Vendors are also doing a wonderful job providing a metric ton of data in their logs.  If you take the initiative to understand the product and the data, you can glean some powerful information that has both security and business value.  Even better, you can create some simple visuals to communicate that data to a wide variety of audiences making it that much more valuable.

Have a great weekend!

 

Capturing and Visualizing Office 365 Security Logs – Part 1

Welcome back again my fellow geeks!

I’ve been busy over the past month nerding out on some pet projects.  I thought it would be fun to share one of those pet projects with you.  If you had a chance to check out my last series, I walked through my first Python experiment which was to write a re-usable tool that could be used to pull data from Microsoft’s Graph API (Microsoft Graph).

For those of you unfamiliar with Microsoft Graph, it’s the Restful API (application programming interface) that is used to interact with Microsoft cloud offerings such as Office 365 and Azure.  You’ve probably been interacting with it without even knowing it if through the many PowerShell modules Microsoft has released to programmatically interact with those services.

One of the many resources which can be accessed through Microsoft Graph are Azure AD (Active Directory) security and audit reports.  If you’re using Office 365, Microsoft Azure, or simply Azure AD as an identity platform for SSO (single sign-on) to third-party applications like SalesForce, these reports provide critical security data.  You’re going to want to capture them, store them, and analyze them.  You’re also going to have to account for the window that Microsoft makes these logs available.

The challenge is they are not available via the means logs have traditionally been captured on-premises by using syslogd, installing an SIEM agent, or even Windows Event Log Forwarding.  Instead you’ll need to take a step forward in evolving the way you’re used to doing things. This is what moving to the cloud is all about.

Microsoft allows you to download the logs manually via the Azure Portal GUI (graphical user interface) or capture them by programmatically interacting with Microsoft Graph.  While the former option may work for ad-hoc use cases, it doesn’t scale.  Instead we’ll explore the latter method.

If you have an existing enterprise-class SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) solution such as Splunk, you’ll have an out of box integration.  However, what if you don’t have such a platform, your organization isn’t yet ready to let that platform reach out over the Internet, or you’re interested in doing this for a personal Office 365 subscription?  I fell into the last category and decided it would be an excellent use case to get some experience with Python, Microsoft Graph, and take advantage of some of the data services offered by AWS (Amazon Web Services).   This is the use case and solution I’m going to cover in this post.

Last year I had a great opportunity to dig into operational and security logs to extract useful data to address some business problems.  It was my first real opportunity to examine large amounts of data and to create different visualizations of that data to extract useful trends about user and application behavior.  I enjoyed the hell out of it and thought it would be fun to experiment with my own data.

I decided that my first use case would be Office 365 security logs.  As I covered in my last series my wife’s Office 365 account was hacked.  The damage was minor as she doesn’t use the account for much beyond some crafting sites (she’s a master crocheter as you can see from the crazy awesome Pennywise The Clown she made me for Christmas).

img_4301

The first step in the process was determining an architecture for the solution.  I gave myself a few requirements:

  1. The solution must not be dependent on my home lab infrastructure
  2. Storage for the logs must be cheap and readily available
  3. The credentials used in my Python code needs to be properly secured
  4. The solution must be automated and notify me of failures
  5. The data needs to be available in a form that it can be examined with an analytics solution

Based upon the requirements I decided to go the serverless (don’t hate me for using that tech buzzword 🙂 ) route.  My decisions were:

  • AWS Lambda would run my code
  • Amazon CloudWatch Events would be used to trigger the Lambda once a day to download the last 24 hours of logs
  • Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) would store the logs
  • AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store would store the parameters my code used leveraging AWS KMS (Key Management Service) to encrypt the credentials used to interact with Microsoft Graph
  • Amazon Athena would hold the schema for the logs and make the data queryable via SQL
  • Amazon QuickSight would be used to visualize the data by querying Amazon Athena

The high level architecture is pictured below.

untitled

I had never done a Lambda before so I spent a few days looking at some examples and doing the typical Hello World that we all do when we’re learning something new.  From there I took the framework of Python code I put together for general purpose queries to the Microsoft Graph, and adapted it into two Lambdas.  One Lambda would pull Sign-In logs while the other would pull Audit Logs.  I also wanted a repeatable way to provision the Lambdas to share with others and get some CloudFormation practice and brush up on my very dusty Bash scripting.   The results are located here in one of my Github repos.

I’m going to stop here for this post because we’ve covered a fair amount of material.  Hopefully after reading this post you understand that you have to take a new tact with getting logs for cloud-based services such as Azure AD.  Thankfully the cloud has brought us a whole new toolset we can use to automate the extraction and storage of those logs in a simple and secure manner.

In my next post I’ll walk through how I used Athena and QuickSight to put together some neat dashboards to satisfy my nerdy interests and get better insight into what’s happening on a daily basis with my Office 365 subscription.

See you next post and go Pats!

Exploring Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) – Part 1

Exploring Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM) – Part 1

We’re going to take a break from Azure Information Protection and shift our focus to Azure Active Directory Privileged Identity Management (AAD PIM).

If you’ve ever had to manage an application, you’re familiar with the challenge of trying to keep a balance between security and usability when it comes to privileged access.  In many cases you’re stuck with users that have permanent membership in privileged roles because the impact to usability of the application is far too great to manage that access on an “as needed basis” or as we refer to it in the industry “just in time” (JIT).   If you do manage to remove that permanent membership requirement (often referred to as standing privileged access) you’re typically stuck with a complicated automation solution or a convoluted engineering solution that gives you security but at the cost of usability and increasing operational complexity.

Not long ago the privileged roles within Azure Active Directory (AAD), Office 365 (O365), and Azure Role-Based Access Control had this same problem.  Either a user was a permanent member of the privileged role or you had to string together some type of request workflow that interacted with the Graph API or triggered a PowerShell script.  In my first entry into Azure AD, I had a convoluted manual process which involved requests, approvals, and a centralized password management system.  It worked, but it definitely impacted productivity.

Thankfully Microsoft (MS) has addressed this challenge with the introduction of Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (AAD PIM).  In simple terms AAD PIM introduces the concept of an “eligible” administrator which allows you to achieve that oh so wonderful JIT.  AAD PIM is capable of managing a wide variety of roles which is another area Microsoft has made major improvements on.  Just a few years ago close to everything required being in the Global Admin role which was a security nightmare.

In addition to JIT, AAD PIM also provides a solid level of logging and analytics, a centralized view into what users are members of privileged roles, alerting around the usage of privileged roles, approval workflow capabilities (love this feature), and even provides an access review capability to help with access certification campaigns.  You can interact with AAD PIM through the Azure Portal, Graph API, or PowerShell.

To get JIT you’ll need an Azure Active Directory Premium P2 or Enteprise Mobility and Security E5 license.  Microsoft states that every use that benefits from the feature requires a license.  While this is a licensing requirement, it’s not technically enforced as we see in my upcoming posts.

You’re probably saying, “Well this is all well and good Matt, but there is nothing here I couldn’t glean from Microsoft documentation.”  No worries my friends, we’ll be using this series to walk to demonstrate the capabilities so you can see them in action.  I’ll also be breaking out my favorite tool Fiddler to take a look behind the scenes of how Microsoft manages to elevate access for the user after a privileged role has been activated.

 

The Evolution of AD RMS to Azure Information Protection – Part 7 – Deep Dive into cross Azure AD tenant consumption

The Evolution of AD RMS to Azure Information Protection – Part 7 – Deep Dive into cross Azure AD tenant consumption

Each time I think I’ve covered what I want to for Azure Information Protection (AIP), I think of another fun topic to explore.  In this post I’m going to look at how AIP can be used to share information with users that exist outside your tenant.  We’ll be looking at the scenario where an organization has a requirement to share protected content with another organization that has an Office 365 tenant.

Due to my requirements to test access from a second tenant, I’m going to supplement the lab I’ve been using.  I’m adding to the mix my second Azure AD tenant at journeyofthegeek.com.  Specific configuration items to note are as follows:

  • The tenant’s custom domain of journeyofthegeek.com is an Azure AD (AAD)-managed domain.
  • I’ve created two users for testing.  The first is named Homer Simpson (homer.simpson@journeyofthegeek.com) and the second is Bart Simpson (bart.simpson@journeyofthegeek.com).
  • Each user have been licensed with Office 365 E3 and Enterprise Mobility + Security E5 licenses.
  • Three mail-enabled security groups have been created.  The groups are named The Simpsons (thesimpsons@journeyofthegeek.com), JOG Accounting (jogaccounting@journeyofthegeek.com), and JOG IT (jogit@journeyofthegeek.com).
  • Homer Simpson is a member of The Simpsons and JOG Accounting while Bart Simpson is a member of The Simpsons and JOG IT.
  • Two additional AIP policies have been created in addition to the Global policy.  One policy is named JOG IT and one is named JOG Accounting.
  • The Global AIP policy has an additional label created named PII that enforces protection.  The label is configured to detect at least one occurrence of a US social security number.  The document is protection policy allows only members of the The Simpsons group to the role of viewer.
  • The JOG Accounting and JOG IT AIP policies have both been configured with an additional label of either JOG Accounting or JOG IT.  A sublabel for each label has also been created which enforces protection and restricts members of the relevant departmental group to the role of viewer.
  • I’ve repurposed the GIWCLIENT2 machine and have created two local users named Bart Simpson and Homer Simpson.

Once I had my tenant configuration up and running, I initialized Homer Simpson on GIWCLIENT2.  I already had the AIP Client installed on the machine, so upon first opening Microsoft Word, the same bootstrapping process I described in my previous post occurred for the MSIPC client and the AIP client.  Notice that the document has had the Confidential \ All Employees label applied to the document automatically as was configured in the Global AIP policy.  Notice also the Custom Permissions option which is presented to the user because I’ve enabled the appropriate setting in the relevant AIP policies.

7aip1.png

I’ll be restricting access to the document by allowing users in the geekintheweeds.com organization to hold the Viewer role.  The geekintheweeds.com domain is associated with my other Azure AD tenant that I have been using for the lab for this series of posts.  First thing I do is change the classification label from Confidential \ All Employees to General.  That label is a default label provided by Microsoft which has an RMS Template applied that restricts viewers to users within the tenant.

One interesting finding I discovered through my testing is that the user can go through the process of protecting with custom permissions using a label that has a pre-configured template and the AIP client won’t throw any errors, but the custom permissions won’t be applied.  This makes perfect sense from a security perspective, but it would be nice to inform the user with an error or warning.  I can see this creating unnecessary help desk calls with how it’s configured now.

When I attempt to change my classification label to General, I receive a prompt requiring me to justify the drop in classification.  This is yet another setting I’ve configured in my Global AIP policy.  This seems to be a standard feature in most data classification solutions from what I’ve observed in another major vendor.

7aip2.png

After successfully classifying the document with the General label protection is removed from the document. At this point I can apply my custom permissions as seen below.

7aip3.png

I repeated the process for another protected doc named jog_protected_for_Ash_Williams.docx with permissions restricted to ash.williams@geekintheweeds.com.  I packaged both files into an email and sent them to Ash Williams who is a user in the Geek In The Weeds tenant.  Keep in mind the users in the Geek In The Weeds tenant are synchronized from a Windows Active Directory domain and use federated authentication.

After opening Outlook the message email from Homer Simpson arrives in Ash William’s inbox.   At this point I copied the files to my desktop, closed Outlook, opened Microsoft Word and used the “Reset Settings” options of the AIP client, and signed out of my Office profile.

7aip4

At this point I started Fiddler and opened one of the Microsoft Word document. Microsoft Word pops-up a login prompt where I type in my username of ash.williams@geekintheweeds.com and I’m authenticated to Office 365 through the standard federated authentication flow. The document then pops open.

7aip5.png

Examining the Fiddler capture we see a lot of chatter. Let’s take a look at this in chunks, first addressing the initial calls to the AIP endpoint.

7aip6

If you have previous experience with the MSIPC client in the AD RMS world you’ll recall that it makes its calls in the following order:

  1. Searches HKLM registry hive
  2. Searches HKCU registry hive
  3. Web request to the RMS licensing pipeline for the RMS endpoint listed in the metadata attached to the protected document

In my previous deep dives into AD RMS we observed this behavior in action.  In the AIP world, it looks like the MSIPC client performs similarly.  The endpoint we see it first contacting is the Journey of the Geek which starts with 196d8e.

The client first sends an unauthenticated HTTP GET to the Server endpoint in the licensing pipeline. The response the server gives is a list of available SOAP functions which include GetLicensorCertificate and GetServerInfo as seen below.

7aip8.png

The client follows up the actions below:

  1. Now that the client knows the endpoint supports the GetServerInfo SOAP function, it sends an unauthenticated HTTP POST which includes the SOAP action of GetServerInfo.  The AIP endpoint returns a response which includes the capabilities of the AIP service and the relevant endpoints for certification and the like.
  2. It uses that information received from the previous request to send an unauthenticated HTTP POST which includes the SOAP action of ServiceDiscoveryForUser.  The service returns a 401.

At this point the client needs to obtain a bearer access token to proceed.  This process is actually pretty interesting and warrants a closer look.

7aip9

Let’s step through the conversation:

  1. We first see a connection opened to odc.officeapps.live.com and an unauthenticated HTTP GET to the /odc/emailhrd/getfederationprovider URI with query strings of geekintheweeds.com.  This is a home realm discovery process trying to the provider for the user’s email domain.

    My guess is this is MSAL In action and is allowing support for multiple IdPs like Azure AD, Microsoft Live, Google, and the like.  I’ll be testing this theory in a later post where I test consumption by a Google user.

    The server responds with a number of headers containing information about the token endpoints for Azure AD (since this is domain associated with an Azure AD tenant.)

    7aip10.png

  2. A connection is then opened to odc.officeapps.live.com and an unauthenticated HTTP GET to the /odc/emailhrd/getidp with the email address for my user ash.williams@geekintheweeds.com. The response is interesting in that I would have thought it would return the user’s tenant ID. Instead it returns a JSON response of OrgId.

    7aip11.png

    Since I’m a nosey geek, I decided to unlock the session for editing.  First I put in the email address associated with a Microsoft Live.  Instead of OrgId it returned MSA which indicates it detects it as being a Microsoft Live account.  I then plugged in a @gmail.com account to see if I would get back Google but instead I received back neither.  OrgId seems to indicate that it’s an account associated with an Azure AD tenant.  Maybe it would perform alternative steps depending on whether it’s MSA or Azure AD in future steps?  No clue.

  3. Next, a connection is made to oauth2 endpoint for the journeyofthegeek.com tenant. The machine makes an unathenticated requests an access token for the https://api.aadrm.com/ in order to impersonate Ash Williams. Now if you know your OAuth, you know the user needs to authenticate and approve the access before the access token can be issued. The response from the oauth2 endpoint is a redirect over to the AD FS server so the user can authenticate.

    7aip12.png

  4. After the user successfully authenticates, he is returned a security token and redirected back to login.microsoftonline.com where the assertion is posted and the user is successfully authenticated and is returned an authorization code.

    7aip13.png

  5. The machine then takes that authorization code and posts it to the oauth2 endpoint for my journeyofthegeek.com tenant. It receives back an Open ID Connect id token for ash.williams, a bearer access token, and a refresh token for the Azure RMS API.

    7aip14.png

    Decoding the bearer access token we come across some interesting information.  We can see the audience for the token is the Azure RMS API, the issuer of the token is the tenant id associated with journeyofthegeek.com (interesting right?), and the identity provider for the user is the tenant id for geekintheweeds.com.

    7aip15.png

  6. After the access token is obtained the machine closes out the session with login.microsoftonline.com and of course dumps a bunch of telemetry (can you see the trend here?).

    7aip16.png

  7. A connection is again made to odc.officeapps.live.com and the /odc/emailhrd/getfederationprovider URI with an unauthenticated request which includes a query string of geekintheweeds.com. The same process as before takes place.

Exhausted yet?  Well it’s about to get even more interesting if you’re an RMS nerd like myself.

7aip17.png

Let’s talk through the sessions above.

  1. A connection is opened to the geekintheweeds.com /wmcs/certification/server.asmx AIP endpoint with an unauthenticated HTTP POST and a SOAP action of GetServerInfo.  The endpoint responds as we’ve observed previously with information about the AIP instance including features and endpoints for the various pipelines.
  2. A connection is opened to the geekintheweeds.com /wmcs/oauth2/servicediscovery/servicediscovery.asmx AIP endpoint with an unauthenticated HTTP POST and a SOAP action of ServiceDiscoveryForUser.  We know from the bootstrapping process I covered in my last post, that this action requires authentication, so we see the service return a 401.
  3. A connection is opened to the geekintheweeds.com /wmcs/oauth2/certification/server.asmx AIP endpoint with an unauthenticated HTTP POST and SOAP action of GetLicensorCertificate.  The SLC and its chain is returned to the machine in the response.
  4. A connection is opened to the geekintheweeds.com /wmcs/oauth2/certification/certification.asmx AIP endpoint with an unauthenticated HTTP POST and SOAP action of Certify.  Again, we remember from my last post that this requires authentication, so the service again responds with a 401.

What we learned from the above is the bearer access token the client obtained earlier isn’t attended for the geekintheweeds.com AIP endpoint because we never see it used.  So how will the machine complete its bootstrap process?  Well let’s see.

  1. A connection is opened to the journeyofthegeek.com /wmcs/oauth2/servicediscovery/servicediscovery.asmx AIP endpoint with an unauthenticated HTTP POST and SOAP action of ServiceDiscoveryForUser.  The service returns a 401 after which the client makes the same connection and HTTP POST again, but this time including its bearer access token it retrieved earlier.  The service provides a response with the relevant pipelines for the journeyofthegeek.com AIP instance.
  2. A connection is opened to the journeyofthegeek.com /wmcs/oauth2/certification/server.asmx AIP endpoint with an authenticated (bearer access token) HTTP POST and SOAP action of GetLicensorCertificate.  The service returns the SLC and its chain.
  3. A connection is opened to the journeyofthegeek.com /wmcs/oauth2/certification/certification.asmx AIP endpoint with an authenticated (bearer access token) HTTP POST and SOAP action of Certify.  The service returns a RAC for the ash.williams@geekintheweeds.com along with relevant SLC and chain.  Wait what?  A RAC from the journeyofthegeek.com AIP instance for a user in geekintheweeds.com?   Well folks this is supported through RMS’s support for federation.  Since all Azure AD’s in a given offering (commercial, gov, etc) come pre-federated, this use case is supported.
  4. A connection is opened to the journeyofthegeek.com /wmcs/licensing/server.asmx AIP endpoint with an uauthenticated HTTP POST and SOAP action of GetServerInfo.  We’ve covered this enough to know what’s returned.
  5. A connection is opened to the journeyofthegeek.com /wmcs/licensing/publish.asmx AIP endpoint with an authenticated (bearer access token) HTTP POST and SOAP action of GetClientLicensorandUserCertificates.  The server returns the CLC and EUL to the user.

After this our protected document opens in Microsoft Word.

7aip18.png

Pretty neat right? Smart move by Microsoft to take advantage and build upon of the federated capabilities built into AD RMS. This is another example showing just how far ahead of their game the product team for AD RMS was. Heck, there are SaaS vendors that still don’t support SAML, let alone on-premises products from 10 years ago.

In the next few posts (can you tell I find RMS fascinating yet?) of this series I’ll explore how Microsoft has integrated AIP into OneDrive, SharePoint Online, and Exchange Online.

Have a great week!

The Evolution of AD RMS to Azure Information Protection – Part 6 – Deep Dive into Client Bootstrapping

The Evolution of AD RMS to Azure Information Protection – Part 6 – Deep Dive into Client Bootstrapping

Today I’m back with more Azure Information Protection (AIP) goodness.  Over the past five posts I’ve covered the use cases, concepts and migration paths.  Today I’m going to get really nerdy and take a look behind the curtains at how the MSIPC client shipped with Office 2016 interacts with AIP .  I’ll be examining the MSIPC client log and reviewing procmon and Fiddler captures.  If the thought of examining log files and SOAP calls excites you, this is a post for you.  Make sure to take a read through my previous posts to ensure you understand my lab infrastructure and configuration as well as key AIP concepts.

Baselining the Client

Like any good engineer, I wanted to baseline my machine to ensure the MSIPC client was functioning correctly.  Recall that my clients are migrating from an on-premises AD RMS implementation to AIP.  I haven’t completed my removal of AD RMS so the service connection point for on-premises AD RMS is still there and the migration scripts Microsoft provides are still in use.  Let’s take a look at the registry entries that are set via the Migrate-Client and Migrate-User script.  In my last post I covered the purpose of the two scripts.  For the purposes of this post, I’m going to keep it brief and only cover registry entries applicable to the MSIPC client shipped with Office 2016.

  1. Migrate-Client
    • Condition: Runs each computer startup only if it detects it has not run before or the version variable in the script has been changed.
    • Registry Entries Modified:
      • Deletes HKLM\Software\Microsoft\MSIPC\ServiceLocation keys
      • Deletes HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\MSIPC\ServiceLocation key
      • Deletes HKLM\Software\Microsoft\MSIPC\ServiceLocation\LicensingRedirection key
      • Deletes HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\MSIPC\ServiceLocation\LicensingRedirection key
      • Add Default value to HKLM\Software\Microsoft\MSIPC\ServiceLocation\EnterpriseCertification key with data value pointing to AIP endpoint for tenant
      • Add Default value to HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\MSIPC\ServiceLocation\EnterpriseCertification key with data value pointing to AIP endpoint for tenant
      • Add a value for the FQDN and single label URLs to on-premises AD RMS licensing pipeline to HKLM\Software\Microsoft\MSIPC\ServiceLocation\LicensingRedirection key with data values pointing to AIP endpoints for tenant
      • Add a value for the FQDN and single label URLs to on-premises AD RMS licensing pipeline to HKLM\Software\Wow6432NodeMicrosoft\MSIPC\ServiceLocation\LicensingRedirection key with data values pointing to AIP endpoints for tenant
  2. Migrate-User
    • Condition: Runs each user logon only if it detects it has not run before or the version variable in the script has been changed.
    • Registry Entries Modified:
      • Deletes HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Office\16.0\Common\DRM key
      • Deletes HKCU\Software\Classes\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\MSIPC key
      • Deletes HKCU\Software\Classes\Microsoft.IPViewerChildMenu\shell key
      • Add DefaultServerUrl value to HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Office\16.0\Common\DRM key and set its data value to the AIP endpoint for the tenant
    • Files Modified:
      • Deletes the contents of the %localappdata%\Microsoft\MSIPC folder

A quick review of my client settings validates that all the necessary registry entries are in place and I have no issues consuming and created protected content.

Resetting the Client

If you have administered AD RMS in the past, you will be very familiar with how to re-bootstrap an RMS client.  Microsoft has made that entire process easier by incorporating a “reset” function into the AIP client.  The function can be accessed in Microsoft Office by hitting the drop down arrow for the AIP icon on the toolbar and selecting the Help and Feedback option.

6AIP1.png

After clicking the Help and Feedback option, a new window pops up where you can select the Reset Settings option to which performs a series of changes to the registry, deletions of RMS licenses, and AIP metadata.  Lastly, I log out of the machine.

6AIP2.png

 

Bootstrapping the Client with Azure Information Protection

After logging back in I start up Fiddler, open Microsoft Word, and attempt to open a file that was protected with my AD RMS cluster. The file opens successfully.

One thing to note is if you’re using Windows 10 and Microsoft Edge like I was, you’ll need to take the extra steps outlined here to successfully capture due to the AppContainer Isolation feature added back in Windows 8. If you do not take those extra steps, you’ll get really odd behavior. Microsoft Edge will fail any calls to intranet endpoints (such as AD FS in my case) by saying it can’t contact the proxy. Trying with Internet Explorer will simply cause Fiddler to fail to make the calls and to throw a DNS error. Suffice to say, I spent about 20 minutes troubleshooting the issue before I remembered Fiddler’s dialog box that pops up every new install about AppContainer and Microsoft Edge.

The first thing we’re going to look at is the MSIPC log files which keep track of the client activity. I have to give an applause to whichever engineer over at Microsoft thought it would be helpful to include such a detailed log. If you’ve administered on-premises AD RMS in the past on previous versions of Microsoft Office, you’ll know the joys (pain?) of client side tracing with DebugView.

When we pop open the log we get some great detail as to the client behavior. We can see the client read a number of registry entries. The first thing we see is the client discover that is not initialized so it calls an API to bootstrap the user. Notice in the below that it has identified my user and it’s mentioning OAuth as a method for authentication to the endpoint.

6AIP3.png

Following this we have a few more registry queries to discover the version of the operating system. We then have our first HTTP session opened by the client. I’m pretty sure this session is the initial user authentication to Azure AD in order to obtain a bearer access token for the user to call further APIs

6AIP4.png

Bouncing over to Fiddler we can check out the authentication process. We can see the machine reach out to Azure AD (login.windows.net), perform home realm discovery which Azure AD determines that geekintheweeds.com is configured for federated authentication. The client makes the connection to the AD FS server where the user is seamlessly authenticated via Kerberos. The windowstransport endpoint is called which supports the WS-Trust 1.3 active profile.  In an WS-Trust active flow, the client initiates the request (hence it’s active) vs the passive flow where the service provider initiates the flow.  This is how Office applications support modern (aka federated) authentication.

6AIP5

After the assertion is obtained, it’s posted to the /common/oauth2/token endpoint at login.windows.net.  The assertion is posted within a request for an access token, refresh token, and id token request using the saml1_1-bearer token grant type for the Azure RMS endpoint.

6AIP6.png

The machine is returned an access token, refresh token, and id token.  We can see the token returned is a bearer token allowing client to impersonate my user moving forward.

6AIP7.png

Dumping the access token into the Fiddler TextWizard and decoding the Base64 gives us the details of the token.  Within the token we can see an arm (authenticated method reference) of wia indicating the user authenticated using Windows authentication.  A variety of information about the user is included in the token including UPN, first name, and last name.

6AIP8.png

I’m fairly certain the tokens are cached to a flat file based upon some of the data I did via procmon while the bootstrap process initiated.  You can see the calls to create the file and write to it below.

6AIP9

After the tokens are obtained and cached we see from the log file that the MSIPC client then discovers it doesn’t have machine certificates.  It goes through the process of creating the machine certificates.

6AIP10.png

We now see the MISPC client attempts to query for the SRV record Microsoft introduced with Office 2016 to help with migrations from AD RMS.  The client then attempts discovery of service by querying the RMS-specific registry keys in the HKLM hive and comes across the information we hardcoded into the machine via the migration scripts.  It uses this information to make a request to the non-authenticated endpoint of https://<tenant_specific>/_wmcs/certification/server.asmx.

6AIP11

Bouncing back to Fiddler and continuing the conversation we can see a few different connections are created.  We see one to api.informationprotection.azure.com, another to mobile.pipe.aria.microsoft.com, and yet another to the AIP endpoint for my tenant.

6AIP12.png

I expected the conversation between api.informationprotection.azure.com and the AIP endpoint for my tenant.  The connection to mobile.pipe.aria.microsoft.com interested me.  I’m not sure if it was randomly captured or if it was part of the consumption of protected content.  I found a few Reddit posts where people were theorizing it has something to do with how Microsoft consumes telemetry from Microsoft Office.  As you could probably guess, this piqued my interest to know what exactly Microsoft was collecting.

We can see from the Fiddler captures that an application on the client machine is posting data to https://mobile.pipe.aria.microsoft.com/Collector/3.0/.  Examination of the request header shows the user agent as AriaSDK Client and the sdk-version of ACT-Windows Desktop.  This looks to be the method in which the telemetry agent for Office collects its information.

6AIP13.png

If we decode the data within Fiddler and dump both sets of data to Notepad we get some insight into what’s being pulled. Most of the data is pretty generic in that there is information about the version of Word I’m using, the operating system version, information that my machine is a virtual machine, and some activity IDs which must relate to something MS holds on their end. The only data point I found interesting was that my tenant ID is included in it. Given tenant id isn’t exactly a secret, it’s still interesting it’s being collected. It must be fascinating to see this telemetry at scale. Interesting stuff either way.

6AIP14.png

Continuing the conversation, let’s examine the chatter with my tenant’s AIP endpoint since the discovery was requested by the MSIPC client.  We see a SOAP request of GetServerInfo posted to https://<tenant_specific>/_wmcs/certification/server.asmx.  The response we receive from the endpoint has all the information our RMS client will need to process the request.  My deep dive into AD RMS was before I got my feet with Fiddler so I’ve never examined the conversations with the SOAP endpoints within AD RMS.  Future blog post maybe?  Either way, I’ve highlighted the interesting informational points below.  We can see that the service is identifying itself as RMS Online, has a set of features that cater to modern authentication, runs in Cryptomode 2, and supports a variety of authentication methods.  I’m unfamiliar with the authentication types beyond X509 and OAuth 2.  Maybe carry overs from on-prem?  Something to explore in the future.  The data boxed in red are all the key endpoints the RMS client needs to know to interact with the service moving forward.  Take note the request at this endpoint doesn’t require any authentication.  That comes in later requests.

6AIP15.png

After the response is received the MSIPC writes a whole bunch of registry entries to the HKCU hive for the user to cache all the AIP endpoint information it discovered.  It then performs a service discovery against the authenticated endpoint using its bearer token it cached to the tokencache file.

6AIP16.png

Once the information is written to the registry, the client initiates a method called GetCertAndLicURLsWithNewSD.  It uses the information it discovered previously to query the protected endpoint https://<tenant_specific>/_wmcs/oauth2/servicediscovery/servicediscovery.asmx.  Initially it receives a 401 unauthorized back with instructions to authenticate uses a bearer token.

6AIP17.png

The client tries again this time providing the bearer token it obtained earlier and placed in the tokencache file.  The SOAP action of ServiceDiscoveryForUser is performed and the client requests the specific endpoints for certification, licensing, and the new tracking portal feature of AIP.

6AIP18.png

The SOAP response contains the relevant service endpoints and user for which the query applied to.

6AIP19.png

The MSIPC client then makes a call to /_wmcs/oauth2/certification/server.asmx with a SOAP request of GetLicensorCertificate.  I won’t break that one down response but it returns the SLC certificate chain in XrML format.  For my tenant this included both the new SLC I generated when I migrated to AIP as well as the SLC from my on-premises AD RMS cluster that I uploaded.

6AIP20.png

The MISPC log now shows a method called GetNewRACandCLC being called which is used to obtain a RAC and CLC. This is done by making a call to the certification pipeline.

6AIP21.png

The call to /_wmcs/oauth2/certification/certification.asmx does exactly as you would expect and calls the SOAP request of Certify. This included my user’s RAC, and both SLCs and certificates in that chain. The one interesting piece in the response was a Quota tag as seen below. I received back five certificates, so maybe there is a maximum that can be returned? If you have more than 4 on-premises AD RMS clusters you’re consolidating to AIP, you might be in trouble. 🙂

6AIP22.png

The MISPC log captures the successful certification and logs information about the RAC.

6AIP23.png

Next up the client attempts to obtain a CLC by calling continuing with the GetNewRACandCLC method. It first calls the /_wmcs/licensing/server.asmx pipeline and makes a GetServerInfo SOAP request which returns the same information we saw in the last request to server.asmx. This request isn’t authenticated and the information returned is written to the HKCU hive for the user.

6AIP24.png

The service successfully returns the users CLC.  The last step in the process is the MSIPC service requests the RMS templates associated with the user.  You can see the template that is associated custom AIP classification label I created.

6AIP25.png

Last but not least, the certificates are written to the %LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\MSIPC directory.

6AIP26.png

Conclusion

Very cool stuff right? I find it interesting in that the MSIPC client performs pretty much the same way it performs with on-premises exempting some of the additional capabilities introduced such as the search for the SRV DNS records and the ability to leverage modern authentication via the bearer token. The improved log is a welcome addition and again, stellar job to whatever engineer at Microsoft thought it would be helpful to include all the detail that is included in that log.

If you’ve used AD RMS or plan to use AIP and haven’t peeked behind the curtains I highly recommend it. Seeing how all the pieces fit together and how a relatively simple web service and a creative use of certificates can provide such a robust and powerful security capability will make your appreciate the service AD RMS tried to be and how far ahead of its time it was.

I know I didn’t cover the calls to the AIP-classification specific web calls, but I’ll explore that in my next entry.  Hopefully you enjoyed nerding out on this post as much as I did. Have a great week and see you next post!

The Evolution of AD RMS to Azure Information Protection – Part 4 – Preparation and Server-Side Migration

The Evolution of AD RMS to Azure Information Protection – Part 4 – Preparation and Server-Side Migration

The time has finally come to get our hands dirty.  Welcome to my fourth post on the evolution of Active Directory Rights Management Service (AD RMS) to Azure Information Protection (AIP).  So far in this series I’ve done an overview of the service, a comparison of the architectures, and covered the key planning decisions that need to place when migrating from AD RMS to AIP.  In this post I’ll be performing the preparation and server-side migration steps for the migration from AD RMS to AIP.

Microsoft has done a wonderful job documenting the steps for the migration from AD RMS to AIP within the migration guide.  I’ll be referencing back to the guide as needed throughout the post.  Take a look at my first post for a refresher of my lab setup.  Take note I’ll be migrating LAB2 and will be leaving LAB1 on AD RMS.  Here are some key things to remember about the lab:

  • There is a forest trust between the JOG.LOCAL and GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM Active Directory Forests
  • AD RMS Trusted User Domains (TUDs) have been configured on both JOG.LOCAL and GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM

I’ve created the following users, groups, and AD RMS templates (I’ve been on an 80s/90s movies fix, so enjoy the names).

  • GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM CONFIGURATION
    • (User) Jason Voorhies
      • User Principal Name Attribute: jason.voorhies@geekintheweeds.com
      • Mail Attribute: jason.voorhies@geekintheweeds.com
      • Group Memberships: Domain Users, GIW Employees, Information Technology
    • (User) Theodore Logan
      • User Principal Name Attribute: theodore.logan@geekintheweeds.com
      • Mail Attribute: theodore.logan@geekintheweeds.com
      • Group Memberships: Domain Users, GIW Employees, Information Technology
    • (User) Ash Williams
      • User Principal Name Attribute: jason.voorhies@geekintheweeds.com
      • Mail Attribute: ash.williams@geekintheweeds.com
      • Group Memberships: Domain Users, GIW Employees, Accounting
    • (User) Michael Myers
      • User Principal Name Attribute: michael.myers@geekintheweeds.com
      • Mail Attribute: michael.myers@geekintheweeds.com
      • Group Memberships: Domain Users, GIW Employees, Accounting
    • (Group) Accounting
      • Mail Attribute: giwaccounting@geekintheweeds.com
      • Group Type: Universal Distribution
    • (Group) GIW Employees
      • Mail Attribute: giwemployees@geekintheweeds.com
      • Group Type: Universal Distribution
    • (Group) Information Technology
      • Mail Attribute: giwit@geekintheweeds.com
      • Group Type: Universal Distribution
    • (Group) GIW AIP Users
      • Group Type: Global Security
    • (AD RMS Template) GIW Accounting
      • Users: giwaccounting@geekintheweeds.com
      • Rights: Full Control
    • (AD RMS Template) GIW Employees
      • Users: giwemployees@geekintheweeds.com
      • Rights: View, View Rights
    • (AD RMS Template) GIW IT
      • Users: giwit@geekintheweeds.com
      • Rights: Full Control
  • JOG.LOCAL CONFIGURATION

    • (User) Luke Skywalker
      • User Principal Name Attribute: luke.skywalker@jog.local
      • Mail Attribute: luke.skywalker@jog.local
      • Group Memberships: Domain Users, jogemployees
    • (User) Han Solo
      • User Principal Name Attribute: han.solo@jog.local
      • Mail Attribute: han.solo@jog.local
      • Group Memberships: Domain Users, jogemployees
    • (Group) jogemployees
      • Mail Attribute: jogemployees@jog.local
      • Group Type: Universal Distribution

After my lab was built I performed the following tests:

  • Protected Microsoft Word document named GIW_LS_ADRMS with GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM AD RMS Cluster and successfully opened with Luke Skywalker user from JOG.LOCAL client machine.
  • Protected Microsoft Word document named GIW_GIWALL_ADRMS with GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM AD RMS Cluster and GIW Employees template and unsuccessfully opened with Luke Skywalker user from JOG.LOCAL client machine.
  • Protected Microsoft Word document named GIW_JV_ADRMS with GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM AD RMS Cluster using Theodore Logan user and opened successfully with Jason Voorhies user from GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM client machine.
  • Protected Microsoft Word document named JOG_MM_ADRMS with JOG.LOCAL AD RMS Cluster using Luke Skywalker user and opened successfully with Michael Myers user from GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM client machine.
    Protected Microsoft Word document named GIW_ACCT_ADRMS with GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM AD RMS Cluster and GIW Accounting template and was unsuccessful in opening with Jason Voorhies user from GEEKINTHEWEEDS.COM client machine.

These tests verified both AD RMS clusters were working successfully and the TUD was functioning as expected.  The lab is up and running, so now it’s time to migrate to AIP!

Our first step is to download the AADRM PowerShell module from Microsoft.  I went the easy route and used the install-module cmdlet.

AIP4PIC1.png

Back in March Microsoft announced that AIP would be enabled by default on any eligible tenants with O365 E3 or above that were added after February.  Microsoft’s migration guide specifically instructs you to ensure protection capabilities are disabled if you’re planning a migration from AD RMS to AIP.  This means we need to verify that AIP is disabled.  To do that, we’re going to use the newly downloaded AADRM module to verify the status.

AIP4PIC2.png

As expected, the service is enabled.  We’ll want to disable the service before beginning the migration process by running the Disable-Aadrm cmdlet.  After running the command, we see that the functional state is now reporting as disabled.

AIP4PIC3.png

While we have the configuration data up we’re going to grab the value (minus _wmcs/licensing) in the  LicensingIntranetDistributionPointUrl property.  We’ll be using this later on in the migration process.

In most enterprise scenarios you’d want to perform a staged migration process of your users from AD RMS to AIP.  Microsoft provides for this with the concept of onboarding controls.  Onboarding controls allow you to manage who has the ability to protect content using AIP even when the service has been enabled at the tenant level.  Your common use case would be creating an Azure AD-managed or Windows AD-synced group which is used as your control group.  Users who are members of the group and are licensed appropriately would be able to protect content using AIP.  Other users within the tenant could consume the content but not protect it.

In my lab I’ll be using the GIW AIP Users group that is being synchronized to Azure AD from my Windows AD as the control group.  To use the group I’ll need to get its ObjectID which is the object’s unique identifier in Azure AD.  For that I used the Get-AzureADGroup cmdlet within Azure AD PowerShell module.

AIP4PIC6

Microsoft’s migration guide next suggests come configuration modifications to Windows computers within the forest.  I’m going to hold off on this for now and instead begin the server-side migration steps.

First up we’re going to export the trusted publisher domains (TPDs) from the AD RMS cluster.  We do this to ensure that users that have migrated over to AIP are still able to open content that was previously protected by the AD RMS cluster.  The TPD includes the Server Licensor Certificate (SLC) keys so when exporting them we protect them with a password and create an XML file that includes the SLC keys and any custom AD RMS rights policy templates.

AIP4PIC7.png

Next we import the exported TPD to AIP using the relevant process based upon how we chose to protect the cluster keys.  For this lab I used a software key (stored in the AD RMS database) so I’ll be using the software key to software key migration path.  Thankfully this path is quite simple and consists of running another cmdlet from the AADRM PowerShell module.  In the first command we store the password used to protect the TPD file as a secure string and use the Import-AadrmTpd cmdlet to pull it into AIP.  Notice the resulting data provides the cluster friendly name, indicates the Cryptographic Mode was set to 1, the key was a Microsoft-managed (aka software key) and there were three rights policy templates attached to the TPD.

Keep in mind that if you have multiple TPDs for some reason (let’s say you migrated from Cryptographic Mode 1 to Cryptographic Mode 2) you’ll need to upload each TPD separately and set the active TPD using the Set-AadrmKeyProperties cmdlet.

AIP4PIC8.png

Running a Get-AadrmTemplate shows the default templates Microsoft provides you with as well as the three templates I had configured in AD RMS.

AIP4PIC9

The last step of the server side of the process is to activate AIP.  For that we use the Enable-Aadrm cmdlet from the AADRM PowerShell module.

AIP4PIC10

At this point the server-side configuration steps have been completed and AIP is ready to go.  However, we still have some very important client-side configuration steps to perform.  We’ll cover those steps in my post.

Have a great week!

The Evolution of AD RMS to Azure Information Protection – Part 3 – Planning The Migration

The Evolution of AD RMS to Azure Information Protection – Part 3 – Planning The Migration

Welcome to the third post in my series exploring the evolution of Active Directory Rights Management Service (AD RMS) into Azure Information Protection (AIP).  My first post provided an overview of the service and some of its usages and my second post covered how the architecture of the solution has changed as the service has shifted from traditional on-premises infrastructure to  a software-as-a-service (SaaS) offering).  Now that we understand the purpose of the service and its architecture, let’s explore what a migration will look like.

For the post I’ll be using the labs I discussed in my first post.  Specifically, I’ll be migrating lab 2 (the Windows Server 2016 lab) from using AD RMS to Azure Information Protection.  I’ve added an additional Windows 10 Professional machine to that lab for reasons I’ll discuss later in the post.  The two Windows 10 machines are named CLIENT1 and CLIENT2.  Microsoft has assembled some guidance which I’ll be referencing throughout this post and using as the map for the migration.

With the introduction done, let’s dig in.

Before we do any button pushing, there’s some planning necessary to ensure a successful migration.  The key areas of consideration are:

  • Impact to collaboration with trusted organizations
  • Tenant key storage
  • AIP Client Rollout
  • Integrated Rights Management (IRM) functionality of Microsoft Exchange Server or Microsoft SharePoint Server

Impact to collaboration with trusted organizations

Possibly most impactful to an organization is the planning that goes into how the migration will affect collaboration with partner organizations.  Back in the olden days of on-premises AD RMS, organizations would leverage the protection and control that came with AD RMS to collaborate with trusted partners.  This was accomplished through trusted user domains (TUDs) or federated trusts.  With AIP the concept of TUDs and additional infrastructure to support federated trusts is eliminated and instead replaced with the federation capabilities provided natively via Azure Active Directory.

Yes folks, this means that if you want the same level of collaboration you had with AD RMS using TUDs, both organizations will need to need to have an Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) tenant with a license that supports the Azure Rights Management Service (Azure RMS).    In a future post in the series, we’ll check out what happens when the partner organization doesn’t migrate to Azure AD and attempts to consume the protected content.

Tenant Key Storage

The tenant key can be thought to as the key to the kingdom in the AIP world.  For those of you familiar with AD RMS, the tenant key serves the same function as the cluster key. In the on-premises world of AD RMS the cluster key was either stored within the AD RMS database or on a hardware security module (HSM).

When performing a migration to the world of AIP, storage of the tenant key has a few options.  If you’re using a cluster key that was stored within the AD RMS database you can migrate the key using some simple PowerShell commands.  If you’re opted to use HSM storage for your cluster key, you’re going to be looking at the bring your own key (BYOK) scenario.  Finally, if you have a hard requirement to keep the key on premises you can explore the hold your own key option (HYOK).

For this series I’ve configured my labs with a cluster key that is stored within the AD RMS database (or software key as MS is referring to it).  The AD RMS cluster in my environment runs in cryptographic mode 1, so per MS’s recommendation I won’t be migrating to cryptographic mode 2 until after I migrate to AIP.

AIP Client Rollout

Using AIP requires the AIP Client be installed.  The AD RMS Client that comes with pre-packaged with Microsoft Office can protect but can’t take advantage of the labels and classification features of AIP.   You’ll need to consider this during your migration process and ensure any middleware that uses the AD RMS Client is compatible with the AIP Client.  The AIP Client is compatible with on-premises AD RMS so you don’t need to be concerned with backwards compatibility.

As I mentioned above, I have two Windows 10 clients named CLIENT1 and CLIENT2.  In the next post I’ll be migrating CLIENT2 to the AIP Client and keeping CLIENT1 on the AD RMS Client.  I’ll capture and break down the calls with Fiddler so we can see what the differences are.

Integrated Rights Management (IRM) functionality of Microsoft Exchange Server or Microsoft SharePoint Server

If you want to migrate to AIP but still have a ways to go before you can migrate Exchange and SharePoint to the SaaS counterparts, have no fear.  You can leverage the protection capabilities of AIP (aka Azure RMS component) by using the Microsoft Rights Management Service Connector.  The connector requires some light weight infrastructure to handle the communication between Exchange/SharePoint and AIP.

I probably won’t be demoing the RMS Connector in this series, so take a read through the documentation if you’re curious.

We’ve covered an overview of AIP, the different architectures of AD RMS and AIP, and now have covered key planning decisions for a migration.  In the next post in my series we’ll start getting our hands dirty by initiating the migration from AD RMS to AIP.  Once the migration is complete, I’ll be diving deep into the weeds and examining the behavior of the AD RMS and AIP clients via Fiddler captures and AD RMS client debugging (assuming it still works with the AIP client).

See you next post!