Tuesday 24 January 2006,
5:45 pm (refreshments) for a 6:30 pm start
Speaker: Russell May BSc(Hons) CITP CEng MBCS EnCE
[Guidance Software Inc] Venue: Met Hotel, Leeds.
Computer Forensics
Russell May BSc(Hons) CITP CEng MBCS EnCE,
Manager of Special and Partner Projects (Europe, Middle
East, Africa, India, Russia),
Guidance Software Inc.
Our first talk
of the New Year clearly generated significant interest,
as we had some eighty people attend. The speaker for
the evening, Russell May, introduced himself and gave a
quick summary of his background, which included
twenty-eight years experience in the West Midlands
police force culminating in a spell as head of the
High-Tech Crime Unit. Russell now works for Guidance
Software, a company based in Pasadena, California, which
specialises in developing software to assist in
retrieving digital information for forensic purposes.
Russell then
outlined the basic rules that must be followed when
examining computers and other digital devices. There are
a number of basic principles that must be abided by.
These are enshrined in the ACPO (Association of Chief
Police Officers) Guidelines on Computer Evidence, and
are used in countries other than the UK, including the
United States. These guidelines MUST be followed for
evidence to be accepted in court.
Principle 1: No
action taken by law enforcement agencies or their agents
should change data held on a computer or storage medium
which may subsequently be relied upon in court.
Principle 2: In
exceptional circumstances, where a person finds it
necessary to access original data held on a computer or
on storage media, that person must be competent to do so
and be able to give evidence explaining the relevance
and the implications of their actions.
Principle 3: An
audit trail or other record of all processes applied to
computer based electronic evidence should be created and
preserved. An independent third party should be able to
examine those processes and achieve the same result.
(In a court case, the defence would be entitled to
require access to this.)
Principle 4: The
onus is on the person in charge of the investigation
(the case officer) to ensure that the law and these
principles are adhered to.
A forensic
analyst will make a bit-by-bit copy of the contents of
the storage medium. The original should then be sealed
and stored in a safe place while all analysis is carried
out on the copy.
If it is
necessary to power up the machine, the analyst will
either use a copy of the machine's hard drive or use a
virtual machine. On many operating systems, the act of
booting the machine leads to many files being created or
modified on the machine's hard disc, and this could mean
violating Principle 1 if the original hard disc is used.
The analyst will
retrieve evidence and present it in a readable form,
suitable for use in court.
The contents of
the machine will be examined for other evidence, such as
money, keys, drugs or other substances concealed in the
machine, or additional hard discs that have been
disconnected so that a casual user of the machine would
not know that they existed or be able to access the
contents.
It is important
to ensure that the suspect device cannot be written to;
this can be a problem with Windows machines as they will
not recognise read-only hard discs, and so a hardware
write-blocking device needs to be used.
Disc images are
examined for hidden or deleted files and partitions.
Any hidden or deleted files or partitions can be
recovered and data that may be of value can be
retrieved.
Photographic
evidence is also collected - this would be photographs
of the computer hardware, how it was laid out, and how
the various components were connected to one another.
This is used to a) document how a system had been set up
(such as evidence of a facility for mass-producing
illegal copies of CDs or DVDs) and b) to re-create the
configuration of components if they have been
disconnected, and it is then decided to power-up the
system as part of the investigation.
One of the key
messages from this talk was that forensics should never
be taken in isolation - it is part of the body of
evidence that has to be amassed for a prosecution to be
brought.
Following this
explanation, Russell demonstrated some of the
capabilities of the EnCase tool developed and marketed
by Guidance Software to show some of the tool's
capabilities and demonstrate some of the ways in which
information and illicit images might be concealed. Some
of the key points from the demonstration were:
1. On
DOS/Windows systems, Fdisk only removes partition
information - it does not physically delete files. A
hard disc that has had Fdisk run on it may still contain
much of the data, as files may have only been logically
rather than physically deleted. A disc editor can
reveal the presence of files even though the operating
system 'thinks' they no longer exist.
2. Files can be
searched for by header, rather than by name. A
particular type of file (such as a jpeg image file) will
have a particular type of header that identifies the
file type. This is independent of the file name. For
example, an image file containing pornographic material
could be disguised by renaming it with a different
extension. However, the file's header information would
still reveal that it was an image file rather than text
or a Word document. A tool such as EnCase can identify
such files.
3. It is
possible to search archives (such as Zip files) and OLE
containers to reveal layered images (such as a Word
document in which one 'harmless' image is positioned on
top of a 'suspect' image to hide it).
4. File
signature analysis is used to find 'disguised' files,
such as a .jpg file (image) disguised as a dll.
5. On a machine
where virtual memory is in use, the swap file can be
examined for unsaved changes.