Skip to main content
Glama

ASREPRoast

Retrieve Kerberos 5 AS-REP etype 23 hashes from users without pre-authentication to identify vulnerable Active Directory accounts for security testing.

Instructions

Retrieve the Kerberos 5 AS-REP etype 23 hash of users without or with Kerberos pre-authentication required

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipsYes
usernamesYes
passwordsYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool registers and implements the ASREPRoast tool. It runs netexec ldap --asreproast to retrieve Kerberos AS-REP etype 23 hashes for specified users on target IPs, saving to hashes.txt. Supports optional passwords.
    @mcp.tool(name="ASREPRoast",description="Retrieve the Kerberos 5 AS-REP etype 23 hash of users without or with Kerberos pre-authentication required ")
    def ASREPRoast(ips:List[str],usernames,passwords):
        if len(passwords)>0:
            return run_command(["netexec","ldap"]+ips+["-u",usernames,"-p",passwords,"--asreproast",config.PROJECT_DIRECTORY+"/hashes.txt"])
    
        return run_command(["netexec","ldap"]+ips+["-u",usernames,"--asreproast",config.PROJECT_DIRECTORY+"/hashes.txt"])
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a retrieval operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, potential network impact, rate limits, or what the output format is. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a security tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from slight elaboration for clarity. No wasted content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (a security tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters ('ips', 'usernames', 'passwords') at all, leaving their purpose, format, and relationships undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the target resource ('Kerberos 5 AS-REP etype 23 hash of users'), specifying the condition ('without or with Kerberos pre-authentication required'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'Kerberoast' by focusing on AS-REP rather than TGS tickets. However, it could be more specific about the verb's scope (e.g., from which systems).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'Kerberoast' or 'enumerate_domain_users'. It mentions the condition for target users but does not explain prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/YoussefSahnoun/PentestMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server