The exFAT file system was designed with Unicode file names and optional vendor-specific extensions in mind. To keep things simple, the file system specification allows the usage of multiple directory entries to describe a single file (so, additional file metadata is described in additional directory entries). This solution is similar to the VFAT extension for the FAT12/16/32 file systems, which was designed as a hack to the original file system format (originally, only one directory entry was used to describe a single file, so long file names were implemented as additional directory entries, which are “invisible” to operating systems without the VFAT support).
In the exFAT file system, a typical file consists of these entries (in this order, with no other entries between):
- one file entry,
- one stream extension entry,
- one or more file name entries (as needed to store the file name),
- zero, one or more vendor-specific entries (which can be ignored if not supported).
The first two entries describe all file metadata (its attributes, timestamps, data size, first cluster, etc.), while the file name entries contain strings to form the file name (each file name entry stores no more than 15 Unicode characters and the file name is no longer than 255 characters). Together, these entries are called a directory entry set (and it must contain at least three entries).
When a file is deleted, its directory entry set is marked as free. This process is very similar to what happens to a deleted file in the FAT12/16/32 file systems: the first byte of a directory entry is changed to mark it as free.
And, of course, it is possible to recover a deleted file when its directory set and data clusters are not overwritten. If the directory entry set is partially overwritten (with new directory entries), the following can be observed:
Continue reading “exFAT: orphan file name entries”
Previously, I wrote about things you probably didn’t know about FAT. Now, let’s continue the story!
In FAT12/16/32 file systems, each directory (except the root directory) contains two special entries:
- dot (“.”);
- dot-dot (“..”).
The first one (dot) refers to the directory itself, while the second one (dot-dot) refers to the parent directory. Apparently, these entries were introduced to keep file system implementations simple, so there is no need to generate those entries on the fly (this is what happens to file systems not wasting their space to store dot and dot-dot entries in every directory).
Since two special entries are regular 8.3 directory entries, they contain timestamps (Created, Modified, Last Accessed). According to Microsoft, these timestamps should be set like this:
[…] and all of the date and time fields in both of these entries are set to the same values as they were in the directory entry for the directory that you just created.FATGEN, 1.03 (DOC)
So, the timestamps in the dot-dot directory entry have no connection to the parent directory of that directory (they aren’t copied from the corresponding timestamp fields of the parent directory). Both special entries have their timestamps set to the same values as in the directory itself.
For example, all these entries are expected to share the same timestamps:
But are these timestamps always synchronized?
Continue reading “macOS & FAT directories”
When I started researching FAT structures, I thought that FAT12/16/32 file systems are well-documented and nothing new can be discovered.
There are specifications from Microsoft (DOC), ECMA (PDF), and an extremely informative article on Wikipedia.
But there are two important things worth mentioning…
Continue reading “Things you probably didn’t know about FAT”
<offtopic>You may find this article interesting: Measured Boot and Malware Signatures: exploring two vulnerabilities found in the Windows loader. It’s about two registry-related vulnerabilities found in the Windows loader.</offtopic>
Many examiners use tools like Arsenal Image Mounter to access shadow copies on disk images. I don’t recommend this method, because you won’t see offline shadow copies, but many of us still rely on it.
And it seems there will be more caveats…
Continue reading “Shadow copies become less visible”
There are two common misconceptions about NTFS:
- A typical file has 8 timestamps.
- Windows Explorer displays $STANDARD_INFORMATION timestamps.
A file with a single name has 12 timestamps: 4 timestamps come from the $STANDARD_INFORMATION attribute in a file record, 4 timestamps come from the $FILE_NAME attribute in the same file record, and 4 timestamps come from the $FILE_NAME attribute in an index record ($I30) of a parent directory.
If there is a short file name together with a long one, the number of timestamps is 20 (8 more timestamps come from two additional $FILE_NAME attributes in a file record and in an index record of a parent directory respectively).
You can also add an UUIDv1 timestamp from the $OBJECT_ID attribute, timestamps recorded in the USN journal and in the $LogFile journal. But these aren’t always present.
Things are more complicated with timestamps displayed by Windows Explorer.
Continue reading “$STANDARD_INFORMATION vs. $FILE_NAME”
This started as an attempt to solve a puzzle:
Some virtualization software allows a user to launch a virtual machine with its real-time clock starting ticking from custom base time. For example, a user can launch a virtual machine with base time set to 2020-12-31 23:59:59 UTC, the real-time clock inside this virtual machine will start ticking from that value, regardless of the current date and time set on a host. I use this feature to test artifacts without telling Windows to move the clock.
However, if you decide to go back and restart the same virtual machine without defining custom base time (also without Internet access and without changing the date and time settings in the running operating system), the guest operating system won’t necessary use the current date and time (as set on a host). In some cases, it will continue to run using the previously defined (future) date.
How is that possible?
Continue reading “The NT kernel can ignore your hardware clock during the boot”
If you read my Windows registry file format specification, you might already know about layered keys. Today, let’s talk about them in more detail.
Some editions of Windows 10 are capable of running Windows containers using Docker. Each Docker container is based on an immutable image with all modified data stored in an overlay. When a Windows container is used, the system has to record modifications affecting both the file system and the registry.
In 2016, Microsoft implemented new functionality called layered keys to allow programs access a merged view of keys and values from two or more registry hives! Now, this functionality is utilized by Docker…
Continue reading “Containerized registry hives in Windows”
This was already described here, but let’s revisit the topic.
Let’s install the Windows Server 2016 operating system on a machine, install all available updates, configure the machine as a domain controller and an RDP server, create several domain user accounts. Then, create a shadow copy and delete it. After some time, create a new shadow copy and keep the machine running for a while, then create another shadow copy. How many shadow copies are there? Two (the oldest one was deleted, thus not counted).
Let’s simulate a remote attack against this domain controller. The attack involves dumping the ntds.dit file. In order to copy that file, I will use an approach outlined in this guide: create a shadow copy, copy the ntds.dit file from it, then delete this shadow copy to remove my tracks (all these actions are performed over an RDP connection, just like a real attack).
Finally, let the system run for some time and occasionally create two more shadow copies. How many shadow copies are there now?
Continue reading “Offline shadow copies”
Yes, shadow copies may contain a relatively small number of unallocated clusters. In this post, I will describe a new way to extract such clusters for further analysis.
The problem with unallocated clusters in shadow copies is that the volsnap driver doesn’t care about them. This driver can snapshot some unallocated ranges, but most of them are out-of-scope.
When reading unallocated clusters from a shadow copy, data from the current state of a volume can be returned. Obviously, this data has nothing to do with the shadow copy:
However unexpectedly when I ran the Encase Recover Folders feature across the HarddiskShadowcopy5 volume it found traces of the Sony folder and in fact many other files post dating the creation of the shadow copy.
The Encase Recover Folders feature parses unallocated clusters looking for folder metadata. It seems that it found data in unallocated clusters relating to the current volume. Therefore I believe that any deleted but recoverable data within the shadow copies needs to be treated with caution.
Null bytes instead of real data can be returned as well.
There is no way to distinguish between “real” and “fake” unallocated data when reading a shadow copy using the device exposed by the volsnap driver (“HarddiskVolumeShadowCopy<N>“).
Continue reading “Extracting unallocated clusters from a shadow copy”
You might already know that the NTFS “Last Access” updates will be back by default in Windows 10 “20H1”. Previously, there were back for installations with small system volumes only. What is the reason behind this? Why do we need last access timestamps?
If you visit the “Configure Storage Sense or run it now” page in the “Settings” window of Windows 10 “19H2”, you may notice the “Delete files in my Downloads folder if they have been there for over” option. The same option in “20H1” reads: “Delete files in my Downloads folder if they haven’t been opened for more than“.
So, this old new NTFS feature has something to do with Storage Sense. It’s a component used to delete unneeded files “to keep your storage optimized”. And the “Last Access” updates are a good way to detect such unneeded files (and the “StorageUsage.dll” library actually uses last access timestamps to find “cold” files).
But there is something you might not notice. Look at the same settings page in Windows 10 “19H2” and read:
Content will become online-only if not opened for more than"
Wait a minute! The “Last Access” updates are on for a relatively small subset of Windows 10 “19H2” installations only… Does this option really work for systems with large system volumes?
Continue reading “OneDrive and NTFS last access timestamps”