Skip to main content
Glama
schwarztim

Rubeus MCP Server

by schwarztim

rubeus_s4u

Perform S4U2Self and S4U2Proxy attacks to obtain service tickets for impersonated users, enabling privilege escalation when you control an account with delegation rights.

Instructions

Perform S4U (Service for User) constrained/unconstrained delegation abuse.

Implements:

  • S4U2Self: Obtain service ticket to yourself on behalf of another user

  • S4U2Proxy: Use constrained delegation to obtain ticket to target service

This is a powerful technique for privilege escalation when you control an account with delegation rights.

Supports:

  • User-based authentication (password/hash)

  • Ticket-based authentication

  • Bronze Bit exploitation (CVE-2020-17049)

  • OPSEC-safe options

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userNoAccount with delegation rights
domainNoDomain name
rc4NoRC4/NTLM hash of delegating account
aes256NoAES256 key of delegating account
aes128NoAES128 key of delegating account
ticketNoTGT of delegating account
impersonateuserYesUser to impersonate
msdsspnNoTarget SPN for S4U2Proxy
altserviceNoAlternative service(s) for SPN substitution
dcNoDomain controller IP/hostname
outfileNoOutput file for ticket
pttNoPass-the-ticket to current session
nowrapNoDon't wrap base64 output
selfNoOnly perform S4U2Self
opsecNoUse OPSEC-safe options
forceNoForce with non-AES256 keys
bronzebitNoExploit CVE-2020-17049
nopacNoRequest ticket without PAC
createnetonlyNoProgram to spawn in netonly session
s4uproxytargetNoFinal delegation target
s4utransitedservicesNoTransited services for PAC
targetdomainNoTarget domain if different
targetdcNoTarget DC if different
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes functionality and supported features (e.g., Bronze Bit, OPSEC-safe options) but does not disclose side effects like ticket creation in memory/disk or permission requirements beyond delegation rights.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured with bullet points, front-loading the core purpose and listing key features without extraneous text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 23 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values (e.g., ticket output format). It covers high-level functionality but misses details on what the tool actually produces.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema handles parameter details. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the high-level functionality; it does not explain parameter relationships or usage specifics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool performs S4U constrained/unconstrained delegation abuse, specifying S4U2Self and S4U2Proxy implementations. It distinguishes itself from sibling Rubeus tools by focusing on delegation abuse and privilege escalation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions using this when you control an account with delegation rights, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like rubeus_asktgs or rubeus_tgtdeleg.

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/schwarztim/sec-rubeus-mcp'

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