
Computer Forensic Tools 1

Your ultimate destination for CSI Linux certification vouchers, exclusive publications, and official CSI Linux merchandise.
[h5p id=”15″]
Chiswick Chap, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; cropped to fit
Camouflage and Freezing
The Potoo bird has natural camouflage and employs a fascinating defense – when a potential predator is nearby, it remains motionless, a tactic called freezing (even the baby potoo does this). With the camouflage and stillness (often imitating a branch), predators who detect motion can’t see them. Those predators would need another way to find it; they’d need to rely on something they knew wasn’t quite right, to detect some form of out-of-the-usual pattern.
Let’s say this Predator (P) travels that way every day and the potoo bird (B) is in a different spot every time. If P could take a photo of the scene each day, it wouldn’t notice B, but would potentially notice a change in each photo – an extra tree limb, a longer branch, etc. A branch could have grown, B might not be in the photo, a limb could have broken – so no photo is conclusive. But over time when all the photos are put together, P could potentially be able to a) know when B was there and b) know B’s pattern of movement. P could even potentially create a flipbook from all the photos to actually recreate the movement.
Signs of Random
This collation of seemingly random data points to see what information emerges is call “stochastic analysis” or “stochastic process.” and is a long-standing and time-honored mathematical model for making predictions (e.g., financial opportunities, bacterial growth patterns) based on random occurrences.
You may be familiar with the Monte Carlo simulation, which is a form of stochastic analysis. The Monte Carlo simulation is an estimation method where random variables are applied to potential situations to generate potential outcomes, often for long-term forecasting (e.g., finance, quality control) where there would be ample potentials situations and variables to account for over time. These predictions help industries to assess risk and make more accurate long-term forecasts.
In forensic science we have what’s called Locard’s principle. This principle states that a criminal will a) bring something to the crime scene and b) leave with something from it – both of these can be used as forensic evidence. This was created by Dr. Edmond Locard (1877–1966), a pioneer in forensic science who became known as the “Sherlock Holmes” of Lyon, France.
When someone breaks into a house, there are obvious signs – glass on the floor inside the door, locks show tampering or even destruction, drawers are emptied, and furniture is overturned. The criminals were looking for your valuables. There’s plenty of evidence of give and take.
Insider Threat
But what if the culprit is someone who lives there? Because the person lives there and knows where everything is, there’s no need to break in or turn out all the things. This is called Insider Threat, and can be – whether in physical or cyber security – a rather more difficult criminal to catch than external threats.
How in the world does an investigator know how to determine who did it? Enter “Stochastic Forensics.”
In traditional forensics, the forensics process relies on artifacts. The laptop of the missing person, the crushed cell phone on the floor, the emails of the suspect – there are often many clues available. It can be very difficult to retrace the steps and analyze the clues, but the clues are often there and readily available
With insider cybertheft, there are often no obvious clues – the person showed up and departed on time, there are no real clues left in email, no special accounts were created, no low-and-slow attacks from strange IP addresses, all files and folders are in place.
It gets even stranger – you know something was stolen, but you don’t know what. Among all the people still there and the people who have come and gone in the ordinary course of business, whodunnit? And how?
Analyze numerous scenarios and see what patterns emerge, aka Stochastic forensics.
Stochastic Forensics
Stochastic forensics is a method used in digital forensics to detect and investigate insider data theft without relying on digital artifacts. This technique involves analyzing and reconstructing digital activity to uncover unauthorized actions without the need for traditional digital traces that might be left behind by cybercriminals. Stochastic forensics is particularly useful in cases of insider threats where individuals may not leave typical digital footprints. By focusing on emergent patterns in digital behavior rather than specific artifacts, stochastic forensics provides a unique approach to identifying data breaches and unauthorized activities within digital systems.
Here’s an example:
A large-scale copying of files occurs, thereby disturbing the statistical distribution of filesystem metadata. By examining this disruption in the pattern of file access, stochastic forensics can identify and investigate data theft that would otherwise go unnoticed. This method has been successfully used to detect insider data theft where traditional forensic techniques may fail, showcasing its effectiveness in uncovering unauthorized activities within digital systems.
Stochastic Forensics was created in 2010 by Jonathan Grier when confronted by a months-old potentially cold case of insider threat. (You can find more information and a collection of links about Jonathan Grier, Stochastic Forensics, and related publications here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_forensics#cite_note-7)
While stochastic forensics may not provide concrete proof of data theft, it offers evidence and indications that can guide further investigation, or even crack the case. While it has been criticized as being insufficient to provide credible evidence, it has proved its utility.
Detective, not Philosopher
This is where the phrase “think like Sherlock, not Aristotle” comes into play. Aristotle used logic to prove existence; Sherlock used observation to infer a likely cause. Lacking evidence, one must infer (aka, abductive reasoning). In stochastic forensics, think like Sherlock.
Stochastic forensics is only one part of an investigation, not the entirety. And it’s a specialty. But that doesn’t mean it’s to be disregarded. Law enforcement doesn’t seek to make their job harder by focusing initially and solely on niche or specialized knowledge – they begin with the quickest and easiest ways to attain their goal. But if those ways are unfruitful, or made downright impossible due to the lack of artifacts, then stochastic forensics is one of those tools to which they can turn.
Criminals never cease to find ways to commit crimes, and Protectors never cease to find ways to uncover those commissions. Creativity is a renewable resource.
What is SSH? SSH, or Secure Shell, is like a special key that lets you securely access and control a computer from another location over the internet. Just as you would use a key to open a door, SSH allows you to open a secure pathway to another computer, ensuring that the information shared between the two computers is encrypted and protected from outsiders.
Imagine you’re a detective and you need to examine a computer that’s in another city without physically traveling there. SSH can be your tool to remotely connect to that computer, look through its files, and gather the evidence you need for your investigation—all while maintaining the security of the information you’re handling.
Similarly, if you need to create an exact copy of the computer’s storage (a process called imaging) for further analysis, SSH can help. It lets you remotely access the computer, run the necessary commands to create an image of the drive, and even transfer that image back to you, all while keeping the data secure during the process.
SSH is a protocol that provides a secure channel over an unsecured network in a client-server architecture, offering both authentication and encryption. This secure channel ensures that sensitive data, such as login credentials and the data being transferred, is encrypted end-to-end, protecting it from eavesdropping and interception.
How SSH Is Used in Digital Investigations In digital investigations, SSH can be used to securely access and commandeer a suspect or involved party’s computer remotely. Investigators can use SSH to execute commands that search for specific files, inspect running processes, or collect system logs without alerting the subject of the investigation. For remote access and imaging, SSH allows investigators to run disk imaging tools on the remote system. The investigator can initiate the imaging process over SSH, which will read the disk’s content, create an exact byte-for-byte copy (image), and then securely transfer this image back to the investigator’s location for analysis.
Here’s a deeper dive into how SSH is utilized in digital investigations, complete with syntax for common operations. Executing Commands to Investigate the System
Investigators can use SSH to execute a wide range of commands remotely. Here’s how to connect to the remote system:
ssh username@target-ip-address
To ensure that all investigative actions are conducted within the bounds of an SSH session without storing any data locally on the investigator’s drive, you can utilize SSH to connect to the remote system and execute commands that process and filter data directly on the remote system. Here’s how you can accomplish this for each of the given tasks, ensuring all data remains on the remote system to minimize evidence contamination.
After establishing an SSH connection, you can search for specific files matching a pattern directly on the remote system without transferring any data back to the local machine, except for the command output.
ssh username@remote-system "find / -type f -name 'suspicious_file_name*'"
This command executes the find
command on the remote system, searching for files that match the given pattern suspicious_file_name*
. The results are displayed in your SSH session.
To list and filter running processes for a specific keyword or process name, you can use the ps
and grep
commands directly over SSH:
ssh username@remote-system "ps aux | grep 'suspicious_process'"
This executes the ps aux
command to list all running processes on the remote system and uses grep
to filter the output for suspicious_process
. Only the filtered list is returned to your SSH session.
To inspect system logs for specific entries, such as those related to SSH access attempts, you can cat
the log file and filter it with grep
, all within the confines of the SSH session:
ssh username@remote-system "cat /var/log/syslog | grep 'ssh'"
This command displays the contents of /var/log/syslog
and filters for lines containing ‘ssh’, directly outputting the results to your SSH session.
find
command which can be resource-intensive, consider the impact on the remote system to avoid disrupting its normal operations.sudo
cautiously, as it may alter system logs or state.By piping data directly through the SSH session and avoiding local storage, investigators can perform essential tasks while maintaining the integrity of the evidence and minimizing the risk of contamination.
For remote disk imaging, investigators can use tools like dd
over SSH to create a byte-for-byte copy of the disk and securely transfer it back for analysis. The following command exemplifies how to image a disk and transfer the image:
ssh username@target-ip-address "sudo dd if=/dev/sdx | gzip -9 -" | dd of=image_of_suspect_drive.img.gz
In this command:
sudo dd if=/dev/sda
initiates the imaging process on the remote system, targeting the disk /dev/sda
.gzip -1 -
compresses the disk image to reduce bandwidth and speed up the transfer.|
) back to the investigator’s machine and written to a file image_of_suspect_drive.img.gz
using dd of=image_of_suspect_drive.img.gz
.pigz
for Parallel Compressionpigz
, a parallel implementation of gzip
, can significantly speed up compression by utilizing multiple CPU cores.
ssh username@target-ip-address "sudo dd if=/dev/sdx | pigz -c" | dd of=image_of_suspect_drive.img.gz
This command replaces gzip
with pigz
for faster compression. Be mindful of the increased CPU usage on the target system.
ewfacquire
ewfacquire
is part of the libewf
toolset and is specifically designed for capturing evidence in the EWF (Expert Witness Compression Format), which is widely used in digital forensics.
ssh username@target-ip-address "sudo ewfacquire -u -c best -t evidence -S 2GiB -d sha1 /dev/sdx"
This command initiates a disk capture into an EWF file with the best compression, a 2GiB segment size, and SHA-1 hashing. Note that transferring EWF files over SSH may require additional steps or adjustments based on your setup.
To securely transfer files or images back to the investigator’s location, scp
(secure copy) can be used:
scp username@target-ip-address:/path/to/remote/file /local/destination
This command copies a file from the remote system to the local machine securely over SSH.
SSH serves as a critical tool in both remote computer management and digital forensic investigations, offering a secure method to access and analyze data without needing physical presence. Its ability to encrypt data and authenticate users makes it invaluable for maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of sensitive information during these processes.
you can use SSH to remotely image a drive to your local system without creating a new file on the remote computer. This method is particularly useful for digital forensics and data recovery scenarios, where it’s essential to create a byte-for-byte copy of a disk for analysis without modifying the source system or leaving forensic artifacts.
The examples you’ve provided illustrate how to accomplish this using different tools and techniques:
dd
and gzip
for Compressionssh username@target-ip-address "sudo dd if=/dev/sdx | gzip -9 -" | dd of=image_of_suspect_drive.img.gz
dd
operation on the remote system to create a byte-for-byte copy of the disk (/dev/sdx
), where x
is the target drive letter.gzip -9 -
command compresses the data stream to minimize bandwidth usage and speed up the transfer.image_of_suspect_drive.img.gz
) using dd
.pigz
for Parallel CompressionTo speed up the compression process, you can use pigz
, which is a parallel implementation of gzip
:
ssh username@target-ip-address "sudo dd if=/dev/sdx | pigz -c" | dd of=image_of_suspect_drive.img.gz
gzip
with pigz
for faster compression, utilizing multiple CPU cores on the remote system.ewfacquire
for EWF ImagingFor a more forensic-focused approach, ewfacquire
from the libewf
toolset can be used:
ssh username@target-ip-address "sudo ewfacquire -u -c best -t evidence -S 2GiB -d sha1 /dev/sdx"
ewfacquire
generates files rather than streaming the data.When using these methods, especially over a public network, ensure the connection is secure and authorized by the target system’s owner. Additionally, the usage of sudo
implies that the remote user needs appropriate permissions to read the disk directly, which typically requires root access. Always verify legal requirements and obtain necessary permissions or warrants before conducting any form of remote imaging for investigative purposes.
CSI Linux Certified Covert Comms Specialist (CSIL-C3S) | CSI Linux Academy
CSI Linux Certified Computer Forensic Investigator | CSI Linux Academy
In the ever-evolving world of cyber threats, malware stands out as one of the most cunning adversaries. Imagine malware as a shape-shifting spy infiltrating your digital life, capable of stealing information, spying on your activities, or causing chaos. Just as spies use disguises and deception to achieve their goals, malware employs various tactics to evade detection and fulfill its nefarious purposes. To combat this, cybersecurity experts use a technique known as dynamic malware analysis, akin to setting a trap to catch the spy in action.
Dynamic malware analysis is somewhat like observing animals in the wild rather than studying them in a zoo. It involves letting the malware run in a controlled, isolated environment, similar to a digital laboratory, where its behavior can be observed safely. This “observe without interference” approach allows experts to see exactly what the malware does—whether it’s trying to send your data to a remote server, making changes to system files, or attempting to spread to other devices. By watching malware in action, analysts can learn how it operates, what damage it seeks to do, and importantly, how to neutralize the threat it poses.
There are several methods to perform dynamic malware analysis, each serving a unique purpose:
By employing these techniques, cybersecurity experts can turn the tables on malware, uncovering its strategies and weaknesses. Now, with a basic understanding of dynamic malware analysis in our toolkit, let’s delve deeper into the technicalities of how this fascinating process unfolds, equipping ourselves with the knowledge to demystify and combat digital espionage.
As we navigate further into the realm of dynamic malware analysis, we encounter a sophisticated landscape of tools, techniques, and methodologies designed to dissect and neutralize malware threats. This deeper exploration reveals the precision and expertise required to understand and mitigate the sophisticated strategies employed by malware developers. Let’s examine the core technical aspects of dynamic malware analysis and how they contribute to the cybersecurity arsenal. The need for a dynamic approach to malware analysis has never been more critical. Like detectives piecing together clues at a crime scene, cybersecurity analysts employ dynamic analysis to chase down the digital footprints left by malware. This intricate dance of observation, dissection, and revelation unfolds in a virtual environment, turning the hunter into the hunted. Through the powerful trifecta of behavioral observation, code analysis, and memory footprint analysis, analysts delve deep into the malware’s psyche, unraveling its secrets and strategies to safeguard our digital lives.
Through the lens of dynamic analysis, every action taken by malware—from the subtle manipulation of system settings to the blatant theft of data—becomes a clue in the quest to understand and neutralize threats. This meticulous process not only aids in the immediate defense against specific malware samples but also enriches the collective knowledge base, preparing defenders for the malware of tomorrow.
Sandboxing is the cornerstone of dynamic malware analysis. It involves creating a virtual environment—essentially a simulated computer system—that mimics the characteristics of real operating systems and hardware. This environment is quarantined from the main system, ensuring that any malicious activity is contained. Analysts can then execute the malware within this sandbox and monitor its behavior in real-time. Tools like Cuckoo Sandbox automate this process, capturing detailed logs of the malware’s actions, network traffic, and system changes.
Sandboxing technology is an ingenious solution to the cybersecurity challenges posed by malware. At its core, it leverages the principles of virtualization and isolation to create a safe environment where potentially harmful code can be executed without risking the integrity of the host system. This section delves into the technical mechanisms of how sandboxes work, their significance in malware analysis, and the role of virtualization in enhancing security measures.
Virtualization is the process of creating a virtual version of something, including but not limited to virtual computer hardware platforms, storage devices, and computer network resources. In the context of sandboxing, virtualization allows for the creation of an entirely isolated operating environment that can run applications like a standalone system. This is achieved through:
Hypervisors: At the heart of virtualization technology are hypervisors, or Virtual Machine Monitors (VMM), which are software, firmware, or hardware that create and run virtual machines (VMs). Hypervisors sit between the hardware and the virtual environment, allocating physical resources such as CPU, memory, and storage to each VM. Two main types of hypervisors exist:
Virtual Machines: A VM is a tightly isolated software container that can run its own operating systems and applications as if it were a physical computer. A sandbox often utilizes VMs to replicate multiple distinct and separate user environments.
Virtualization contributes to sandbox security by:
Resource Allocation: It ensures that the virtual environment has access only to the resources allocated by the hypervisor, preventing the malware from consuming or attacking the physical resources directly.
Snapshot Integrity: By maintaining snapshot integrity, virtualization enables the preservation of initial system states. This is critical for analyzing malware behavior under different system conditions without the need to reconfigure physical hardware.
Hardware-assisted Virtualization: Modern CPUs provide hardware-assisted virtualization features (such as Intel VT-x and AMD-V) that enhance the performance and security of VMs. These features help in executing sensitive operations directly on the processor, reducing the attack surface for malware that attempts to detect or escape the virtual environment.
The sophisticated interplay between sandboxing and virtualization technologies offers a robust framework for dynamic malware analysis. By harnessing these technologies, cybersecurity professionals can safely execute and analyze malware, gaining insights into its operational mechanics, communication patterns, and overall threat landscape. As malware continues to evolve in complexity and stealth, the role of advanced sandboxing and virtualization in cybersecurity defense mechanisms becomes increasingly paramount.
After successfully installing Cuckoo Sandbox, the next steps involve configuring and using it to analyze malware samples. Cuckoo Sandbox automates the process of executing suspicious files in an isolated environment (virtual machines) and collecting comprehensive details about their behavior. Here’s how to deploy a Windows 7 virtual machine (VM) as an analysis environment and execute malware analysis using Cuckoo Sandbox.
Before diving into the syntax and commands, ensure you have a Windows 7 VM ready for analysis. This VM should be configured according to Cuckoo’s documentation, with guest additions installed, the network set to host-only mode, and Cuckoo’s agent.py running on startup.
VBoxManage snapshot "Windows 7" take "Clean State" --pause
VBoxManage snapshot "Windows 7" list
"Windows 7"
with the name of your VM. The --pause
option ensures the VM is paused when the snapshot is taken, and the list
command verifies the snapshot was created.~/.cuckoo/conf/virtualbox.conf
. Add a section for your Windows 7 VM, specifying the snapshot name and other relevant settings.[Windows_7]
label = Windows 7
platform = windows
ip = 192.168.56.101
snapshot = Clean State
ip
matches the IP address of your VM in the host-only network and that snapshot
corresponds to the name of the snapshot you created.Setting up Cuckoo Sandbox with KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) and QEMU (Quick Emulator) offers a robust and efficient option for dynamic malware analysis on Linux systems. KVM provides virtualization at the kernel level, enhancing performance, while QEMU facilitates the emulation of various hardware architectures. This setup is particularly beneficial for analyzing malware in environments other than Windows, such as Linux or Android. Here’s how to configure Cuckoo Sandbox to use KVM and QEMU for malware analysis.
Create a Virtual Network:
Configure a host-only or NAT network using virt-manager
or virsh
to isolate the analysis environment. This step ensures that malware cannot escape the virtual machine and affect your network.
Set Up a Guest VM for Analysis:
Using virt-manager
, create a new VM that will serve as your analysis environment. Install the OS (e.g., a minimal installation of Ubuntu for Linux malware analysis), and ensure it has network access through the virtual network you created.
Snapshot the Clean State:
After setting up the VM, take a snapshot representing the clean state. This snapshot will be reverted to after each analysis run.
virsh snapshot-create-as --domain Your_VM_Name --name "snapshot_name" --description "Clean state before malware analysis"
Install Cuckoo’s KVM Support:
Ensure that Cuckoo Sandbox is already installed. You may need to install additional packages for KVM support.
Configure Cuckoo’s Virtualization Settings:
Edit the Cuckoo configuration file for KVM, typically found at ~/.cuckoo/conf/kvm.conf
. Here, define the details of your KVM VM:
[kvm]
machines = analysis1
[analysis1]
label = Your_VM_Name
platform = linux # or "windows" or "android" depending on your setup
ip = 192.168.100.101 # The IP address of the VM in the virtual network
snapshot = snapshot_name
Make sure the label
matches the VM name in KVM, platform
reflects the guest OS, ip
is the static IP address of the VM, and snapshot
is the name of the snapshot you created earlier.
Adjust Cuckoo’s Analysis Configuration:
Depending on the malware you’re analyzing and the specifics of your VM, you might want to customize the analysis options in Cuckoo’s ~/.cuckoo/conf/analysis.conf
file. This can include setting timeouts, network options, and more.
With your Windows 7 VM configured, you’re ready to submit malware samples to Cuckoo Sandbox for analysis.
submit.py
script to submit a malware sample for analysis. Here’s a basic syntax: cuckoo submit /path/to/malware.exe
/path/to/malware.exe
with the actual path to your malware sample. Cuckoo will automatically queue the sample for analysis using the configured Windows 7 VM.~/.cuckoo/storage/analyses/
directory, with each analysis assigned a unique ID.cuckoo web runserver
http://localhost:8000
in your web browser to view the analysis results.Cuckoo Sandbox supports various advanced analysis options that can be specified at submission:
Network Analysis: To enable full network capture (PCAP) for the analysis, use the --options
flag:
cuckoo submit --options "network=1" /path/to/malware.exe
Increased Analysis Time: For malware that delays its execution, increase the default analysis time:
cuckoo submit --timeout 300 /path/to/malware.exe
This sets the analysis duration to 300 seconds (5 minutes).
Access Cuckoo’s web interface or review the logs in ~/.cuckoo/storage/analyses/
to examine the detailed reports generated by the analysis. These reports will provide insights into the behavior of the malware, including file modifications, network traffic, and potentially malicious actions.
Debuggers are the microscopes of the malware analysis world. They allow analysts to inspect the execution of malware at the code level. Tools such as OllyDbg and x64dbg enable step-by-step execution, breakpoints, and modification of code and data. This granular control helps in understanding malware’s evasion techniques, payload delivery mechanisms, and exploitation of vulnerabilities. Understanding and neutralizing malware threats necessitates a deep dive into their very essence—down to the individual instructions and operations that comprise their malicious functionalities. This is where advanced debugging techniques come into play, serving as a cornerstone for dissecting and analyzing malware. Debuggers, akin to high-powered microscopes, afford analysts a detailed view into the execution flow of malware, allowing for an examination that reveals not just what a piece of malware does, but how it does it.
The use of advanced debugging techniques in malware analysis not only enhances our understanding of specific threats but also contributes to the overall improvement of cybersecurity defenses. By dissecting malware at the code level, analysts can uncover new vulnerabilities, understand emerging attack vectors, and contribute to the development of more robust security solutions. This continuous cycle of analysis, discovery, and improvement is vital for staying ahead in the perpetual arms race between cyber defenders and attackers
For safely running and analyzing malware on Linux, employing dynamic analysis through debugging or isolation tools is critical. These techniques ensure that the malware can be studied without compromising the host system or network. Here’s a focused list of tools and methods that facilitate the safe execution of malware for dynamic analysis on Linux
Debugging Tools:
Isolation Tool:
Utilizing Firejail to sandbox malware analysis tools enhances your cybersecurity workflow by adding an extra layer of isolation and safety. Below are syntax examples for how you would use Firejail with the mentioned debugging and analysis tools on Linux. These examples assume you have both Firejail and the respective tools installed on your system.
GDB (GNU Debugger)
firejail gdb /path/to/binary
This command runs gdb
sandboxed with Firejail, opening the specified binary for debugging.
radare2
firejail radare2 -d /path/to/binary
Launches radare2 in debugging mode (-d
) for a specified binary, within a Firejail sandbox.
Immunity Debugger (using Wine)
firejail wine /path/to/ImmunityDebugger/ImmunityDebugger.exe /path/to/windows/binary
Executes Immunity Debugger under Wine within a Firejail sandbox to analyze a Windows binary. Adjust the path to Immunity Debugger and the target binary accordingly.
x64dbg (using Wine)
firejail wine /path/to/x64dbg/x32/x64dbg.exe /path/to/windows/binary
Runs x64dbg via Wine in a Firejail sandbox. Use the correct path for x64dbg (x32 for 32-bit binaries or x64 for 64-bit binaries) and the Windows binary you wish to debug.
Valgrind
firejail valgrind /path/to/unix/binary
Sandboxes the Valgrind tool with Firejail to analyze a Unix binary for memory leaks and errors.
GEF (GDB Enhanced Features)
Since GEF is an extension for GDB, you use it within a GDB session. To start a GDB session with GEF loaded in a Firejail sandbox, you can simply use the GDB command. Ensure GEF is already set up in your .gdbinit
file.
firejail gdb /path/to/binary
Then, within GDB, GEF features will be available thanks to your .gdbinit
configuration.
PEDA (Python Exploit Development Assistance for GDB)
Similar to GEF, PEDA enhances GDB and is invoked the same way once set up in your .gdbinit
.
firejail gdb /path/to/binary
With PEDA configured in .gdbinit
, starting GDB in a Firejail sandbox automatically includes PEDA’s functionality.
Paths: Replace /path/to/binary
with the actual path to the binary you’re analyzing. For tools like Immunity Debugger and x64dbg, adjust the path to the executable and the target binary accordingly.
Wine Paths: When running Windows applications with Wine, paths might need to be specified in Wine’s C:\ drive format. Use winepath
to convert Unix paths to Windows format if necessary.
Firejail Profiles: Firejail comes with default security profiles for many applications, which can be customized for stricter isolation. Ensure no conflicting profiles exist that might restrict your debugging tools more than intended.
Using these tools within Firejail’s sandboxed environment greatly reduces the risk associated with running potentially harmful malware samples. It’s an essential practice for safely conducting dynamic malware analysis
The choice of tools for malware analysis should be guided by the specific requirements of the task, including the target platform of the malware, the depth of analysis needed, and the analyst’s familiarity with the toolset. Combining debuggers with isolation tools like Firejail on Linux offers a versatile and safe environment for dissecting malware across different platforms.
Memory analysis provides a snapshot of the system’s state while the malware is active. It involves examining the contents of a system’s RAM to uncover how malware interacts with the operating system, manipulates memory, and possibly injects malicious code into legitimate processes. Tools like Volatility and Rekall are instrumental in this process, offering the ability to analyze memory dumps and uncover hidden artifacts of malware execution. Memory analysis stands as a critical component in the arsenal against malware, offering a unique vantage point from which to observe and understand malicious activities in real-time. Unlike traditional disk-based forensics, memory analysis delves into the volatile digital ether of a computer’s RAM, where evidence of malware execution, manipulation, and evasion techniques can be discovered. This method provides an indispensable snapshot of a system’s state during or immediately after a malware attack, revealing the in-memory footprint of malicious processes that might otherwise leave minimal traces on the hard drive.
At its core, memory analysis is about capturing and dissecting the ephemeral state of a system’s RAM. When malware runs, it invariably interacts with and alters system memory: from executing code, manipulating running processes, to stealthily embedding itself within legitimate applications. These actions, while fleeting, can be captured in a memory dump—a complete snapshot of what was in RAM at the moment of capture.
Volatility Framework:
Volatility is an open-source memory forensics framework for incident response and malware analysis. It is designed to analyze volatile memory (RAM) from 32- and 64-bit systems running Windows, Linux, Mac, or Android. Volatility provides a powerful command-line interface that enables investigators to run a wide array of plugins to extract system information, analyze process memory, detect hidden or injected code, and much more.
Key capabilities include:
Example command:
volatility -f memory_dump.img --profile=Win7SP1x64 pslist
This command lists the processes running on a Windows 7 SP1 x64 system as captured in the memory dump memory_dump.img
. You can find more information about Volatility and use cases here: Unlocking Windows Memory with Volatility3
Rekall Framework:
Rekall is another advanced memory forensics tool, similar in spirit to Volatility but with a focus on providing a more unified analysis experience across different operating systems. It offers a robust set of features for memory acquisition and analysis, including a unique memory acquisition tool (Pmem) and an interactive console for real-time analysis.
Rekall’s strengths lie in its:
Example command:
rekall -f memory_dump.img pslist
Similar to Volatility, this command lists processes from the memory_dump.img
memory image, leveraging Rekall’s analysis capabilities.
Through the lens of memory forensics, investigators can uncover:
Memory analysis provides an unparalleled depth of insight into the behavior and impact of malware on a compromised system. As malware continues to evolve, becoming more sophisticated and evasive, the role of memory forensics grows in importance. Tools like Volatility and Rekall, with their continuous development and community support, are at the forefront of this battle, equipping cybersecurity professionals with the means to fight back against malware threats
Dynamic malware analysis is a dynamic battlefield, with analysts constantly adapting to the evolving strategies of malware authors. By leveraging sandboxing, debugging, and memory analysis, cybersecurity experts can peel back the layers of deceit woven by malware, offering insights crucial for developing effective defenses. As the digital landscape continues to grow in complexity, the role of dynamic malware analysis
Imagine you’re baking a cake, and you use the same spoon to mix different ingredients without washing it in between. The flavors from one ingredient could unintentionally mix into the next, changing the taste of your cake. This is similar to what happens with cross-contamination of evidence in investigations. It’s like accidentally mixing bits of one clue with another because the clues weren’t handled, stored, or moved carefully. Just as using a clean spoon for each ingredient keeps the flavors pure, handling each piece of evidence properly ensures that the original clues remain untainted and true to what they are supposed to represent.
ross contamination of evidence refers to the transfer of physical evidence from one source to another, potentially contaminating or altering the integrity of the original evidence. This can occur through a variety of means, including handling, storage, or transport of the evidence.
Cross-contamination in the context of digital evidence refers to any process or mishap that can potentially alter, degrade, or compromise the integrity of the data. Unlike physical evidence, digital cross-contamination involves the unintended transfer or alteration of data through improper handling, storage, or processing practices.
It is important to prevent cross contamination of evidence in order to maintain the integrity and reliability of the evidence being used in a case. This can be achieved through proper handling, storage, and transport of evidence, as well as using clean tools and equipment.
Cross contamination of digital evidence refers to the unintentional introduction of external data or contamination of the original data during the process of collecting, handling, and analyzing digital evidence. This can occur when different devices or storage media are used to handle or store the evidence, or when the original data is modified or altered in any way.
One example of cross contamination of digital evidence is when a forensic investigator uses the same device to collect evidence from multiple sources. If the device is not properly sanitized between uses, the data from one source could be mixed with data from another source, making it difficult to accurately determine the origin of the data.
Another example of cross contamination of digital evidence is when an investigator copies data from a device to a storage media, such as a USB drive or hard drive, without properly sanitizing the storage media first. If the storage media contains data from previous cases, it could mix with the new data and contaminate the original evidence.
Cross contamination of digital evidence can also occur when an investigator opens or accesses a file or device without taking proper precautions, such as making a copy of the original data or using a forensic tool to preserve the data. This can result in the original data being modified or altered, which could affect the authenticity and integrity of the evidence.
The dangers of making this mistake with digital evidence is a significant concern in forensic investigations because it can compromise the reliability and accuracy of the evidence, potentially leading to false conclusions or incorrect results. It is important for forensic investigators to take proper precautions to prevent cross contamination, such as using proper forensic tools and techniques, sanitizing devices and storage media, and following established protocols and procedures.
Cross-contamination of digital evidence can undermine the integrity of forensic investigations, mixing or altering data in ways that obscure its origin and reliability. Several practical scenarios illustrate how easily this can happen if careful measures aren’t taken:
In the intricate dance of digital forensics, where the boundary between guilt and innocence can hinge on a single byte of data, the integrity of evidence stands as the bedrock of justice. However, in the shadowed corridors of cyber investigations, pitfalls await the unwary investigator, where a moment’s oversight can spiral into a vortex of unintended consequences. As we embark on a journey into the realm of digital forensics, we’ll uncover the hidden dangers that lurk within the process of evidence collection and analysis. Through a series of compelling scenarios, we invite you to delve into the what-ifs of contaminated evidence, ach a cautionary tale that underscores the paramount importance of meticulous evidence handling. Prepare to be both enlightened and engaged as we explore the potential perils that could not only unravel cases but also challenge the very principles of justice. Join us as we navigate these treacherous waters, illuminating the path to safeguarding the sanctity of digital evidence and ensuring the scales of justice remain balanced.
Detective Jane was investigating a high-profile case involving corporate espionage. Two suspects, Mr. A and Mr. B, were under scrutiny for allegedly stealing confidential data from their employer. During the searches at their respective homes, Jane collected various digital devices and storage media, including two USB drives – one from each suspect’s home office.
In the rush of collecting evidence from multiple locations, the USB drives were not immediately labeled and were placed in the same evidence bag. Back at the forensic lab, the drives were analyzed without a strict adherence to the procedure that required immediate and individual labeling and separate storage.
The USB drive from Mr. A contained family photos and personal documents, while the drive from Mr. B held stolen company files. However, due to the initial mix-up and lack of immediate, distinct labeling, the forensic analyst, under pressure to process evidence quickly, mistakenly attributed the drive containing the stolen data to Mr. A.
Based on the misattributed evidence, the investigation focused on Mr. A, leading to his arrest. The prosecution, relying heavily on the digital evidence presented, successfully argued the case against Mr. A. Mr. A was convicted of a crime he did not commit, while Mr. B, the actual perpetrator, remained free. The integrity of the evidence was called into question too late, after the wrongful conviction had already caused significant harm to Mr. A’s life, reputation, and trust in the justice system.
To avoid such catastrophic outcomes, strict adherence to digital evidence handling protocols is essential:
Forensic Examiner Sarah was tasked with analyzing digital evidence for a case involving financial fraud. The evidence included several hard drives seized from the suspect’s office. To transfer and examine the data, Sarah used a set of collection disks that were part of the lab’s standard toolkit.
Unknown to Sarah, one of the collection disks had been improperly sanitized after its last use in a completely unrelated case involving drug trafficking. The disk still contained fragments of data from its previous assignment.
During the analysis, Sarah inadvertently copied the old, unrelated data along with the suspect’s files onto the examination workstation. The oversight went unnoticed as the focus was primarily on the suspect’s financial records. Based on Sarah’s analysis, the prosecution built its case, incorporating comprehensive reports that, unbeknownst to all, included data from the previous case.
During the trial, the defense’s digital forensic expert discovered the unrelated data intermingled with the case files. The defense argued that the presence of extraneous data compromised the integrity of the entire evidence collection and analysis process, suggesting tampering or gross negligence.
To prevent such scenarios, forensic labs must institute and rigorously enforce the following protocols:
Detective Mark, while investigating a case of corporate espionage, seized a laptop from the suspect’s home that was believed to contain critical evidence. Eager to quickly ascertain the relevance of the files contained within, Mark powered on the laptop and began navigating through the suspect’s files directly, without first creating a forensic duplicate of the hard drive.
In his haste, Mark altered the “last accessed” timestamps on several documents and email files he viewed. These metadata changes were automatically logged by the operating system, unintentionally modifying the digital evidence.
The defense team, during pre-trial preparations, requested a forensic examination of the laptop. The forensic analyst hired by the defense discovered the altered metadata and raised the issue in court, arguing that the evidence had been tampered with. They contended that the integrity of the entire dataset on the laptop was now in question, as there was no way to determine the extent of the contamination.
To avert such scenarios, law enforcement agencies must implement and strictly adhere to digital evidence handling protocols:
To mitigate the risks of cross-contamination in digital forensic investigations, it’s crucial that investigators employ rigorous protocols. This includes the use of dedicated forensic tools that create exact bit-for-bit copies before examination, ensuring all devices and media are properly cleansed before use, and adhering strictly to guidelines that prevent any direct interaction with the original data. Such practices are essential to maintain the evidence’s credibility, ensuring it remains untainted and reliable for judicial proceedings.
Think of digital evidence as a delicate treasure that needs to be handled with the utmost care to preserve its value. Just like a meticulously curated museum exhibit, every step from discovery to display (or in our case, court) must be carefully planned and executed. Here’s how this is done:
Imagine having a toolkit where every tool is specially designed for a particular job, ensuring no harm comes to the precious item you’re working on. In digital forensics, using verified and validated tools is akin to having such a specialized toolkit. These tools are crafted to interact with digital evidence without altering it, ensuring the original data remains intact for analysis. Just as a conservator would use tools that don’t leave a mark, digital investigators use software that preserves the digital scene as it was found.
Volatile data, like the fleeting fragrance of a flower, is information that disappears the moment a device is turned off. Capturing this data requires skill and precision, akin to capturing the scent of that flower in a bottle. Techniques and procedures are in place to ensure this ephemeral data is not lost, capturing everything from the last websites visited to the most recently typed messages, all without changing or harming the original information.
Once the digital evidence is collected, imagine it as a valuable artifact that needs to be transported from an excavation site to a secure vault. This process involves not only physical security but also digital protection to ensure unauthorized access is prevented. Encrypting data during transport and using tamper-evident packaging is akin to moving a priceless painting in a locked, monitored truck. These measures protect the evidence from any external interference, keeping it pristine.
A chain of custody is like the logbook of a museum exhibit, detailing every person who has handled the artifact, when they did so, and why. For digital evidence, this logbook is critical. It documents every interaction with the evidence, providing a transparent history that verifies its journey from the scene to the courtroom has been under strict oversight. This documentation is vital for ensuring that the evidence presented in court is the same as that collected from the crime scene, untainted and unchanged.
Adhering to these practices transforms the handling of digital evidence into a meticulous art form, ensuring that the truth it holds is presented in court with clarity and integrity.
What Evidence Can You Identify?
[h5p id=”5″]
The Chain of Custody is the paperwork or paper trail (virtual and physical) that documents the order in which physical or electronic evidence is possessed, controlled, transferred, analyzed, and disposed of. Crucial in fields such as law enforcement, legal proceedings, and forensic science, here are several reasons to ensure a proper chain of custody:
1. Preservation of Evidence Integrity
Maintaining an unbroken chain of custody ensures that the integrity of the evidence is preserved. It proves that there hasn’t been any tampering, alteration, or contamination of the evidence during its handling and transfer from one person or location to another.
2. Admissibility in Court
A properly documented chain of custody is necessary for evidence to be admissible in court. It provides assurance to the court that the evidence presented is reliable and has not been compromised, which strengthens the credibility of the evidence and ensures a fair trial.
3. Establishing Accountability
Each individual or entity that comes into contact with the evidence is documented in the chain of custody. This helps track who had possession of the evidence at any given time and ensures transparency and accountability in the evidence handling.
4. Tracking Movement and Location
The chain of custody documents the movement and location of evidence from the time of collection until its presentation in court or disposition. Investigators, attorneys, and other stakeholders must be able to track the progress of the case and ensure that all necessary procedures are followed to the letter.
5. Protecting Against Contamination or Loss
Properly documenting the chain of custody helps prevent contamination or loss of evidence. By recording each transfer and handling the evidence, any discrepancies or irregularities can be identified and addressed promptly, minimizing the risk of compromising the evidence.
6. Ensuring Compliance with Legal Requirements
Many jurisdictions have specific legal requirements regarding the documentation and maintenance of the chain of custody for different types of evidence. Adhering to these requirements is essential to ensure that the evidence is legally admissible and that all necessary procedures are followed.
Maintaining the chain of custody involves the following typical steps:
1. Collection
One cannot understate the use of proper techniques and tools to avoid contaminating or damaging the evidence when collecting evidence from the crime scene or other relevant locations.
2. Documentation
Immediately after collection, the person collecting the evidence must document details such as the date, time, location, description of the evidence, and the names of those involved in the evidence collection. The CSI Linux investigation platform includes templates to help maintain the chain of custody.
3. Packaging and Sealing
The evidence must be properly packaged and sealed in containers or evidence bags to prevent tampering, contamination, or loss during transportation and storage. Each package should be labeled with unique identifiers and sealed with evidence tape or similar security measures.
4. Labeling
Each package or container should be labeled with identifying information, including the case number, item number, description of the evidence, and the initials or signature of the person who collected it.
5. Transfer
Whenever the evidence is transferred from one person or location to another, whether it’s from the crime scene to the laboratory or between different stakeholders in the investigation, the transfer must be documented. This includes recording the date, time, location, and the names of the individuals involved in the transfer.
6. Receipt and Acknowledgment
The recipient of the evidence must acknowledge receipt by signing a chain of custody form or evidence log. This serves as confirmation that the evidence was received intact and/or in the condition described.
7. Storage and Security
The evidence must be stored securely in designated storage facilities that are accessible only to authorized personnel, and physical security measures (e.g., locks, cameras, and alarms) should be in place to prevent unauthorized access.
8. Analysis and Testing
Any analysis or testing should be performed by qualified forensic experts following established procedures and protocols. The chain of custody documentation must accompany the evidence throughout the analysis process.
9. Documentation of Analysis Results
The results of analysis and testing conducted on the evidence must be documented along with the chain of custody information. This includes changes in the condition of the evidence or additional handling that occurred during analysis.
10. Court Presentation
If the evidence is presented in court, provide the chain of custody documentation to establish authenticity, integrity, and reliability. This could involve individual testimony from those involved in the chain of custody.
You can learn more about the proper chain of custody in the course “CSI Linux Certified Computer Forensic Investigator.” All CSI Linux courses are located here: https://shop.csilinux.com/academy/
Here are some other publicly available resources about the importance of maintaining rigor in the chain of custody:
· CISA Insights: Chain of Custody and Critical Infrastructure Systems
This resource defines chain of custody and highlights the possible consequences and risks that can arise from a broken chain of custody.
· NCBI Bookshelf – Chain of Custody
This resource explains that the chain of custody is essential for evidence to be admissible in court and must document every transfer and handling to prevent tampering.
· InfoSec Resources – Computer Forensics: Chain of Custody
This source discusses the process, considerations, and steps involved in establishing and preserving the chain of custody for digital evidence.
· LHH – How to Document Your Chain of Custody and Why It’s Important
LHH’s resource emphasizes the importance of documentation and key details that should be included in a chain of custody document, such as date/time of collection, location, names involved, and method of capture.
Best wishes in your chain of custody journey!
In the captivating world of digital forensics, forensic imaging, also known as bit-stream copying, is a cornerstone technique, pivotal to the integrity and effectiveness of the investigative process. This meticulous practice involves creating an exact, sector-by-sector replica of a digital storage medium.
The essence of forensic imaging is not just in the replication but in its fidelity. Every byte, every hidden sector, and every potentially overlooked piece of data is captured, providing a comprehensive snapshot of the digital medium at a specific point in time.
Enter dcfldd, an enhanced version of the Unix dd command, developed by the Department of Defense Computer Forensics Lab (DCFL). It’s a powerful ally in the digital forensic investigator’s arsenal, enriching the standard dd functionalities with features tailored for forensic application.
Forensic imaging isn’t merely a process; it’s an art form. It requires a meticulous hand and a discerning eye. Each image created is more than a copy; it’s a digital preservation of history, a snapshot of a device’s life story.
Creating a disk image using CSI Linux and dcfldd with an MD5 hash involves several technical steps. Here’s a detailed guide:
sudo fdisk –l
to list all disks and their paths. For example, /dev/sdc
ls –lha /dev | grep sd
to view permissions, then sudo chmod 440 /dev/sdc
dcfldd if=/dev/sdc of=~/Cases/case001/Forensic\ Evidence\ Images/hdd001.dd hash=md5 hashlog=~/Cases/case001/Forensic\ Evidence\ Images/hdd001_hashlog.txt
dcfldd if=/dev/sdc vf=~/Cases/case001/Forensic\ Evidence\ Images/hdd001.dd verifylog=~/Cases/case001/Forensic\ Evidence\ Images/hdd001_verifylog.txt
sudo md5sum ~/Cases/case001/Forensic\ Evidence\ Images/hdd001.dd /dev/sdc
.Remember, the integrity of the data and following the correct procedures are paramount in forensic imaging to ensure the evidence is admissible in legal contexts.
CSI Linux Certified Computer Forensic Investigator | CSI Linux Academy
In today’s digital world, crime scenes have become more complex. Law enforcement must collect and preserve digital evidence with great care. They must understand the technology and use specialized tools to ensure data remains intact. Sorting through large amounts of digital evidence is challenging, so experts use software to assist in organization and analysis. Admissible evidence requires strict documentation and adherence to protocols. Law enforcement must stay updated on technology and collaborate with legal experts. Their efforts are crucial in the pursuit of justice in the digital age.
Here’s an in-depth look at what to be aware of when collecting digital evidence onsite.
Before even touching a device:
If the device is on:
Onsite digital evidence collection is a delicate and pivotal operation in forensic investigation. The transient nature of digital data makes this process significant, as it can be altered, deleted, or lost if mishandled. Professionals must approach this task with technological expertise, forensic best practices, and meticulous attention to detail. To ensure the integrity of collected evidence, investigators must adhere to a well-defined procedure. This typically involves assessing the crime scene and identifying and documenting all digital devices or storage media present, such as computers, smartphones, tablets, external hard drives, and USB drives. Each device is labeled, photographed, and logged for a verifiable chain of custody. Investigators use specialized tools and techniques to make forensic copies of the digital data, creating bit-by-bit replicas to maintain evidence integrity. They use write-blocking devices to prevent modifications during the collection process. Investigators must be vigilant to avoid pitfalls that compromise evidence integrity, such as mishandling devices or storage media. They handle digital evidence with care, wearing protective gloves and using proper tools to prevent damage. Encryption or password protection on devices may require advanced techniques to bypass or crack. Investigators stay up to date with digital forensics advancements to overcome these obstacles. They also protect collected evidence from tampering or deletion by securely storing it, utilizing encryption methods, and implementing strong access controls. Following these procedures and being mindful of pitfalls allows investigators to confidently collect digital evidence that withstands challenges. This meticulous approach plays a vital role in achieving justice and fair resolution in criminal cases.
CSI Linux Certified Computer Forensic Investigator | CSI Linux Academy