29 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

author	created on	last updated	issue id
Mike Griese @zadjii-msft	2020-11-20	2021-08-17

Elevation Quality of Life Improvements

Abstract

For a long time, we've been researching adding support to the Windows Terminal for running both unelevated and elevated (admin) tabs side-by-side, in the same window. However, after much research, we've determined that there isn't a safe way to do this without opening the Terminal up as a potential escalation-of-privilege vector.

Instead, we'll be adding a number of features to the Terminal to improve the user experience of working in elevated scenarios. These improvements include:

A visible indicator that the Terminal window is elevated (#1939)
Configuring the Terminal to always run elevated (#632)
Configuring a specific profile to always open elevated (#632)
Allowing new tabs, panes to be opened elevated directly from an unelevated window
Dynamic profile appearance that changes depending on if the Terminal is elevated or not. (#1939, #8311)

Background

This section was originally authored in the Process Model 2.0 Spec. Please refer to it there for its original context.

Let's presume that you're a user who wants to be able to open an elevated tab within an otherwise unelevated Terminal window. We call this scenario "mixed elevation" - the tabs within the Terminal can be running either unelevated or elevated client applications.

It wouldn't be terribly difficult for the unelevated Terminal to request the permission of the user to spawn an elevated client application. The user would see a UAC prompt, they'd accept, and then they'd be able to have an elevated shell alongside their unelevated tabs.

However, this creates an escalation of privilege vector. Now, there's an unelevated window which is connected directly to an elevated process. At this point, any other unelevated application could send input to the Terminal's HWND. This would make it possible for another unelevated process to "drive" the Terminal window, and send commands to the elevated client application.

It was initially theorized that the window/content model architecture would also help enable "mixed elevation". With mixed elevation, tabs could run at different integrity levels within the same terminal window. However, after investigation and research, it has become apparent that this scenario is not possible to do safely after all. There are numerous technical difficulties involved, and each with their own security risks. At the end of the day, the team wouldn't be comfortable shipping a mixed-elevation solution, because there's simply no way for us to be confident that we haven't introduced an escalation-of-privilege vector utilizing the Terminal. No matter how small the attack surface might be, we wouldn't be confident that there are no vectors for an attack.

Some things we considered during this investigation:

If a user requests a new elevated tab from an otherwise unelevated window, we could use UAC to create a new, elevated window process, and "move" all the current tabs to that window process, as well as the new elevated client. Now, the window process would be elevated, preventing it from input injection, and it would still contains all the previously existing tabs. The original window process could now be discarded, as the new elevated window process will pretend to be the original window.
- However, it is unfortunately not possible with COM to have an elevated client attach to an unelevated server that's registered at runtime. Even in a packaged environment, the OS will reject the attempt to CoCreateInstance the content process object. this will prevent elevated windows from re-connecting to unelevated client processes.
- We could theoretically build an RPC tunnel between content and window processes, and use the RPC connection to marshal the content process to the elevated window. However, then we would need to be responsible for securing access the RPC endpoint, and we feel even less confident doing that.
- Attempts were also made to use a window-broker-content architecture, with the broker process having a static CLSID in the registry, and having the window and content processes at mixed elevation levels CoCreateInstance that broker. This however also did not work across elevation levels. This may be due to a lack of Packaged COM support for mixed elevation levels.
  
  It's also possible that the author forgot that packaged WinRT doesn't play nicely with creating objects in an elevated context. The Terminal has previously needed to manually manifest all its classes in a SxS manifest for Unpackaged WinRT to allow the classes to be activated, rather than relying on the packaged catalog. It's theoretically possible that doing that would have allowed the broker to be activated across integrity levels.
  
  Even if this approach did end up working, we would still need to be responsible for securing the elevated windows so that an unelevated attacker couldn't hijack a content process and trigger unexpected code in the window process. We didn't feel confident that we could properly secure this channel either.

We also considered allowing mixed content in windows that were originally elevated. If the window is already elevated, then it can launch new unelevated processes. We could allow elevated windows to still create unelevated connections. However, we'd want to indicate per-pane what the elevation state of each connection is. The user would then need to keep track themselves of which terminal instances are elevated, and which are not.

This also marks a departure from the current behavior, where everything in an elevated window would be elevated by default. The user would need to specify for each thing in the elevated window that they'd want to create it elevated. Or the Terminal would need to provide some setting like "autoElevateEverythingInAnElevatedWindow".

We cannot support mixed elevation when starting in a unelevated window. Therefore, it doesn't make a lot of UX sense to support it in the other direction. It's a cleaner UX story to just have everything in a single window at the same elevation level.

Solution Design

Instead of supporting mixed elevation in the same window, we'll introduce the following features to the Terminal. These are meant as a way of improving the quality of life for users who work in mixed-elevation (or even just elevated) environments.

Visible indicator for elevated windows

As requested in #1939, it would be nice if it was easy to visibly identify if a Terminal window was elevated or not.

One easy way of doing this is by adding a simple UAC shield to the left of the tabs for elevated windows. This shield could be configured by the theme (see #3327). We could provide the following states:

Colored (the default)
Monochrome
Hidden, to hide the shield even on elevated windows. This is the current behavior.

figure 1: a monochrome UAC shield in the titlebar of the window, courtesy of @mdtauk

We could also simplify this to only allow a boolean true/false for displaying the shield. As we do often with other enums, we could define true to be the same as the default appearance, and false to be the hidden option. As always, the development of the Terminal is an iterative process, where we can incrementally improve from no setting, to a boolean setting, to a enum-backed one.

Configuring a profile to always run elevated

Oftentimes, users might have a particular tool chain that only works when running elevated. In these scenarios, it would be convenient for the user to be able to identify that the profile should always run elevated. That way, they could open the profile from the dropdown menu of an otherwise unelevated window and have the elevated window open with the profile automatically.

We'll be adding the "elevate": true|false setting as a per-profile setting, with a default value of false. When set to true, we'll try to auto-elevate the profile whenever it's launched. We'll check to see if this window is elevated before creating the connection for this profile. If the window is not elevated, then we'll create a new window with the requested elevation level to handle the new connection.

"elevate": false will do nothing. If the window is already elevated, then the profile won't open an un-elevated window.

If the user tries to open an "elevate": true profile in a window that's already elevated, then a new tab/split will open in the existing window, rather than spawning an additional elevated window.

There are three situations where we're creating new terminal instances: new tabs, new splits, and new windows. Currently, these are all actions that are also exposed in the wt commandline as subcommands. We can convert from the commandline arguments into these actions already. Therefore, it shouldn't be too challenging to convert these actions back into the equal commandline arguments.

For the following examples, let's assume the user is currently in an unelevated Terminal window.

When the user tries to create a new elevated tab, we'll need to create a new process, elevated, with the following commandline:

wt new-tab [args...]

When we create this new wt instance, it will obey the glomming rules as specified in [Session Management Spec]. It might end up glomming to another existing window at that elevation level, or possibly create its own window.

Similarly, for a new elevated window, we can make sure to pass the -w new arguments to wt. These parameters indicate that we definitely want this command to run in a new window, regardless of the current glomming settings.

wt -w new new-tab [args...]

However, creating a new pane is a little trickier. Invoking the wt split-pane [args...] is straightforward enough.

After discussing with the team, we have decided that the most sensible approach for handling a cross-elevation split-pane is to just create a new tab in the elevated window. The user can always re-attach the pane as a split with the move-pane command once the new pane in the elevated window.

Configure the Terminal to always run elevated

elevate is a per-profile property, not a global property. If a user wants to always have all instances of the Terminal run elevated, they could set "elevate": true in their profile defaults. That would cause all profiles they launch to always spawn as elevated windows.

`elevate` in Actions

Additionally, we'll add the elevate property to the NewTerminalArgs used in the newTab, splitPane, and newWindow actions. This is similar to how other properties of profiles can be overridden at launch time. This will allow windows, tabs and panes to all be created specifically as elevated windows.

In the NewTerminalArgs, elevate will be an optional boolean, with the following behavior:

null (default): Don't modify the elevate property for this profile
true: This launch should act like the profile had "elevate": true in its properties.
false: This launch should act like the profile had "elevate": false in its properties.

We'll also add an iterable command for opening a profile in an elevated tab, with the following json:

{
    // New elevated tab...
    "name": { "key": "NewElevatedTabParentCommandName", "icon": "UAC-Shield.png" },
    "commands": [
        {
            "iterateOn": "profiles",
            "icon": "${profile.icon}",
            "name": "${profile.name}",
            "command": { "action": "newTab", "profile": "${profile.name}", "elevated": true }
        }
    ]
},

Currently, the new tab dropdown supports opening a new pane by Alt+clicking on a profile. We could similarly add support to open a tab elevated with Ctrl+click. This is similar to the behavior of the Windows taskbar. It supports creating an elevated instance of a program by Ctrl+clicking on entries as well.

Implementation Details

Starting an elevated process from an unelevated process

It seems that we're able to create an elevated process by passing the "runas" verb to ShellExecute. So we could use something like

ShellExecute(nullptr,
             L"runas",
             L"wt.exe",
             L"-w new new-tab [args...]",
             nullptr,
             SW_SHOWNORMAL);

This will ask the shell to perform a UAC prompt before spawning wt.exe as an elevated process.

👉 NOTE: This mechanism won't always work on non-Desktop SKUs of Windows. For more discussion, see Elevation on OneCore SKUs.

Potential Issues

Accessibility	The set of changes proposed here are not expected to introduce any new accessibility issues. Users can already create elevated Terminal windows. Making it easier to create these windows doesn't really change our accessibility story.
Security	We won't be doing anything especially unique, so there aren't expected to be any substantial security risks associated with these changes. Users can already create elevated Terminal windows, so we're not really introducing any new functionality, from a security perspective. We're relying on the inherent security of the `runas` verb of `ShellExecute` to prevent any sort of unexpected escalation-of-privilege. One security concern is the fact that the `settings.json` file is currently a totally unsecured file. It's completely writable by any medium-IL process. That means it's totally possible for a malicious program to change the file. The malicious program could find a user's "Elevated PowerShell" profile, and change the commandline to `malicious.exe`. The user might then think that their "Elevated PowerShell" will run `powershell.exe` elevated, but will actually auto-elevate this attacker. If all we expose to the user is the name of the profile in the UAC dialog, then there's no way for the user to be sure that the program that's about to be launched is actually what they expect. To help mitigate this, we should always pass the evaluated `commandline` as a part of the call to `ShellExecute`. the arguments that are passed to `ShellExecute` are visible to the user, though they need to click the "More Details" dropdown to reveal them. We will need to mitigate this vulnerability regardless of adding support for the auto-elevation of individual terminal tabs/panes. If a user is launching the Terminal elevated (i.e. from the Win+X menu in Windows 11), then it's possible for a malicious program to overwrite the `commandline` of their default profile. The user may now unknowingly invoke this malicious program while thinking they are simply launching the Terminal. To deal with this more broadly, we will display a dialog within the Terminal window before creating any elevated terminal instance. In that dialog, we'll display the commandline that will be executed, so the user can very easily confirm the commandline. This will need to happen for all elevated terminal instances. For an elevated Windows Terminal window, this means all connections made by the Terminal. Every time the user opens a new profile or a new commandline in a pane, we'll need to prompt them first to confirm the commandline. This dialog within the elevated window will also prevent an attacker from editing the `settings.json` file while the user already has an elevated Terminal window open and hijacking a profile. The dialog options will certainly be annoying to users who don't want to be taken out of their flow to confirm the commandline that they wish to launch. There's precedent for a similar warning being implemented by VSCode, with their [Workspace Trust] feature. They too faced a similar backlash when the feature first shipped. However, in light of recent global cybersecurity attacks, this is seen as an acceptable UX degradation in the name of application trust. We don't want to provide an avenue that's too easy to abuse. When the user confirms the commandline of this profile as something safe to run, we'll add it to an elevated-only version of `state.json`. (see #7972 for more details). This elevated version of the file will only be accessible by the elevated Terminal, so an attacker cannot hijack the contents of the file. This will help mitigate the UX discomfort caused by prompting on every commandline launched. This should mean that the discomfort is only limited to the first elevated launch of a particular profile. Subsequent launches (without modifying the `commandline`) will work as they always have. The dialog for confirming these commandlines should have a link to the docs for "Learn more...". Transparency in the face of this dialog should mitigate some dissatisfaction. The dialog will not appear if the user does not have a split token - if the user's PC does not have UAC enabled, then they're already running as an Administrator. Everything they do is elevated, so they shouldn't be prompted in this way. The Settings UI should also expose a way of viewing and removing these cached entries. This page should only be populated in the elevated version of the Terminal.
Reliability	No changes to our reliability are expected as a part of this change.
Compatibility	There are no serious compatibility concerns expected with this changelist. The new `elevate` property will be unset by default, so users will heed to opt-in to the new auto-elevating behavior. There is one minor concern regarding introducing the UAC shield on the window. We're planning on using themes to configure the appearance of the shield. That means we'll need to ship themes before the user will be able to hide the shield again.
Performance, Power, and Efficiency	No changes to our performance are expected as a part of this change.

Centennial Applications

In the past, we've had a notoriously rough time with the Centennial app infrastructure and running the Terminal elevated. Notably, we've had to list all our WinRT classes in our SxS manifest so they could be activated using unpackaged WinRT while running elevated. Additionally, there are plenty of issues running the Terminal in an "over the shoulder" elevation (OTS) scenario.

Specifically, we're concerned with the following scenario:

the current user account has the Terminal installed,
but they aren't an Administrator,
the Administrator account doesn't have the Terminal installed.

In that scenario, the user can run into issues launching the Terminal in an elevated context (even after entering the Admin's credentials in the UAC prompt).

This spec proposes no new mitigations for dealing with these issues. It may in fact make them more prevalent, by making elevated contexts more easily accessible.

Unfortunately, these issues are OS bugs that are largely out of our own control. We will continue to apply pressure to the centennial app team internally as we encounter these issues. They are the team best equipped to resolve these issues.

Default Terminal & auto-elevation

In the future, when we support setting the Terminal as the "default terminal emulator" on Windows. When that lands, we will use the profiles.defaults settings to create the tab where we'll be hosting the commandline client. If the user has "elevate": true in their profiles.defaults, we'd usually try to auto-elevate the profile. In this scenario, however, we can't do that. The Terminal is being invoked on behalf of the client app launching, instead of the Terminal invoking the client application.

2021-08-17 edit: Now that "defterm" has shipped, we're a little more aware of some of the limitations with packaged COM and elevation boundaries. Defterm cannot be used with elevated processes at all currently (see #10276). When an elevated commandline application is launched, it will always just appear in conhost.exe. Furthermore, An unelevated peasant can't communicate with an elevated monarch so we can't toss the connection to the elevated monarch and have them handle it.

The simplest solution here is to just always ignore the elevate property for incoming defterm connections. This is not an ideal solution, and one that we're willing to revisit if/when #10276 is ever fixed.

Elevation on OneCore SKUs

This spec proposes using ShellExecute to elevate the Terminal window. However, not all Windows SKUs have support for ShellExecute. Notably, the non-Desktop SKUs, which are often referred to as "OneCore" SKUs. On these platforms, we won't be able to use ShellExecute to elevate the Terminal. There might not even be the concept of multiple elevation levels, or different users, depending on the SKU.

Fortunately, this is a mostly hypothetical concern for the moment. Desktop is the only publicly supported SKU for the Terminal currently. If the Terminal ever does become available on those SKUs, we can use these proposals as mitigations.

If elevation is supported, there must be some other way of elevating a process. We could always use that mechanism instead.
If elevation isn't supported (I'm thinking 10X is one of these), then we could instead display a warning dialog whenever a user tries to open an elevated profile.
- We could take the warning a step further. We could add another settings validation step. This would warn the user if they try to mark any profiles or actions as "elevate":true

Future considerations

If we wanted to go even further down the visual differentiation route, we could consider allowing the user to set an entirely different theme (#3327) based on the elevation state. Something like elevatedTheme, to pick another theme from the set of themes. This would allow them to force elevated windows to have a red titlebar, for example.
Over the course of discussion concerning appearance objects (#8345), it became clear that having separate "elevated" appearances defined for profiles was overly complicated. This is left as a consideration for a possible future extension that could handle this scenario in a cleaner way.
Similarly, we're going to leave #3637 "different profiles when elevated vs unelevated" for the future. This also plays into the design of "configure the new tab dropdown" (#1571), and reconciling those two designs is out-of-scope for this particular release.
Tangentially, we may want to have a separate Terminal icon we ship with the UAC shield present on it. This would be especially useful for the tray icon. Since there will be different tray icon instances for elevated and unelevated windows, having unique icons may help users identify which is which.

De-elevating a Terminal

the original version of this spec proposed that "elevated":false from an elevated Terminal window should create a new unelevated Terminal instance. The mechanism for doing this is described in [The Old New Thing: How can I launch an unelevated process from my elevated process, redux].

This works well when the Terminal is running unpackaged. However, de-elevating a process does not play well with packaged centennial applications. When asking the OS to run the packaged application from an elevated context, the system will still create the child process elevated. This means the packaged version of the Terminal won't be able to create a new unelevated Terminal instance.

From an internal mail thread:

App model intercepts the CreateProcess call and redirects it to a COM service. The parent of a packaged app is not the launching app, it’s some COM service. So none of the parent process nonsense will work because the parameters you passed to CreateProcess aren’t being used to create the process.

If this is fixed in the future, we could theoretically re-introduce de-elevating a profile. The original spec proposed a "elevated": bool? setting, with the following behaviors:

null (default): Don't modify the elevation level when running this profile
true: If the current window is unelevated, try to create a new elevated window to host this connection.
false: If the current window is elevated, try to create a new unelevated window to host this connection.

We could always re-introduce this setting, to supersede elevate.

Change profile appearance for elevated windows

In #3062 and #8345, we're planning on allowing users to set different appearances for a profile whether it's focused or not. We could do similar thing to enable a profile to have a different appearance when elevated. In the simplest case, this could allow the user to set "background": "#ff0000". This would make a profile always appear to have a red background when in an elevated window.

The more specific details of this implementation are left to the spec [Configuration object for profiles].

In discussion of that spec, we decided that it would be far too complicated to try and overload the unfocusedAppearance machinery for differentiating between elevated and unelevated versions of the same profile. Already, that would lead to 4 states: [appearance, unfocusedAppearance, elevatedAppearance, elevatedUnfocusedAppearance]. This would lead to a combinatorial explosion if we decided in the future that there should also be other states for a profile.

This particular QoL improvement is currently being left as a future consideration, should someone come up with a clever way of defining elevated-specific settings.

[Configuration object for profiles]: ../%233062%20-%20Appearance configuration object for profiles.md [Session Management Spec]: ./%234472%20-%20Windows%20Terminal%20Session%20Management.md [The Old New Thing: How can I launch an unelevated process from my elevated process, redux]: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20190425-00/?p=102443 [Workspace Trust]: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/workspace-trust

29 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History Unescape Escape