Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

11/18/2009
01:35 PM
John H. Sawyer
John H. Sawyer
Commentary
50%
50%

Push-Button Forensics

Digital forensics, computer forensics, or whatever you want to call the investigation and analysis of computer systems and digital media, is a challenging field that requires deep knowledge of the systems being analyzed. There is a push, however, to lower the barrier to entry for lesser skilled analysts to perform digital forensics using modern forensic tools.

Digital forensics, computer forensics, or whatever you want to call the investigation and analysis of computer systems and digital media, is a challenging field that requires deep knowledge of the systems being analyzed. There is a push, however, to lower the barrier to entry for lesser skilled analysts to perform digital forensics using modern forensic tools.I saw a few references on Twitter to a blog entry titled "The Value of Push Button Forensics" and several mixed responses on the topic of having forensic tools that are so easy that a caveman could use them. Okay, well, maybe not a caveman, but at least a technical analyst who doesn't have years of forensic training, experience, or the deep understanding of what's going on under the hood of the forensic tools that a seasoned forensic investigator has.

As the author of the blog mentions, push button forensics (PBF) has a lot of appeal for organizations that are coming under increasing pressure to perform more forensics but finding themselves backlogged. For example, I just spoke to one law enforcement group that has two forensic examiners with a six month backlog. Six months! Wow.

Now if that group had several analysts who could process the smaller cases using PBF tools, that would free up the primary investigators to work on the bigger, more serious cases. Or, it might mean they could create the case in the PBF, pre-process evidence so indexing, file carving, etc. is done, that would help streamline getting the evidence into the hands of the experienced examiners.

Do I think inexperienced analysts should be performing forensic investigations from start to finish and possibly, testifying in court? I have some doubts. I've read numerous comments from forensic guys who have been in the forensic field for years that said they'd love to go head-to-head against someone who only knows how to use the PBF tools but not what's happening at the filesystem level or how the tool parses the registry.

What concerns me is the forensic cases that occur more on the fringe where an attacker or suspect uses a system that isn't supported by the PBF tool. Or they use anti-forensic techniques that will hide data from the PBF tool that leads to an incorrect final conclusion. Will there always been a senior investigator there to review the work? Or should it be left to the senior investigator in the first place?

I'm looking forward to how the forensic tool market will play out. Digital forensics in a time-consuming activity and I welcome tools to make it easier as long as it doesn't abstract the underlying activities so much that we forget our roots.

John H. Sawyer is a senior security engineer on the IT Security Team at the University of Florida. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are his own and do not represent the views and opinions of the UF IT Security Team or the University of Florida. When John's not fighting flaming, malware-infested machines or performing autopsies on blitzed boxes, he can usually be found hanging with his family, bouncing a baby on one knee and balancing a laptop on the other. Special to Dark Reading.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
US Turning Up the Heat on North Korea's Cyber Threat Operations
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  9/16/2019
Fed Kaspersky Ban Made Permanent by New Rules
Dark Reading Staff 9/11/2019
NetCAT Vulnerability Is Out of the Bag
Dark Reading Staff 9/12/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-16395
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-17
GnuCOBOL 2.2 has a stack-based buffer overflow in the cb_name() function in cobc/tree.c via crafted COBOL source code.
CVE-2019-16396
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-17
GnuCOBOL 2.2 has a use-after-free in the end_scope_of_program_name() function in cobc/parser.y via crafted COBOL source code.
CVE-2019-16199
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-17
eQ-3 Homematic CCU2 before 2.47.18 and CCU3 before 3.47.18 allow Remote Code Execution by unauthenticated attackers with access to the web interface via an HTTP POST request to certain URLs related to the ReGa core process.
CVE-2019-16391
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-17
SPIP before 3.1.11 and 3.2 before 3.2.5 allows authenticated visitors to modify any published content and execute other modifications in the database. This is related to ecrire/inc/meta.php and ecrire/inc/securiser_action.php.
CVE-2019-16392
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-17
SPIP before 3.1.11 and 3.2 before 3.2.5 allows prive/formulaires/login.php XSS via error messages.