In my
previous post I recapped day one of the
2009 SANS Forensics Summit. In this post, I'll continue with coverage of day two, but first, I have to say that I did cut out for a few hours during day two to have lunch with my friend
mubix from
Room362.com so I apologize in advance for not being able to comment on things I didn't see.
Ovie Carroll, Director of the
Cybercrime Lab at U.S. Department of Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section started off day two. Carroll is co-host of the
Cyberspeak podcast and like
Richard Bejtlich, Carroll gives a great presentation accompanied by an entertaining slide deck. One of the things I really liked about Carroll's presentation was that he took time to update it with information that had been presented the previous day. There weren't a bunch of updates, but it was nice to see that he thought content from the previous day was as valuable as I did and that he took the time to make the updates at all demonstrated how much he cared about the subject matter.
Carroll spoke about trends in and the future of forensics from a law enforcement perspective. One of the key take aways from Carroll's talk was that there is a mountain of work facing law enforcement and they are having difficulty keeping up. He mentioned that it was not uncommon for some agencies to have systems in their possession for 18 months before they get a look at them. Having worked for defense attorneys (prosecutors never call me) for a number of years now, I haven't seen delays quite that long, but I don't doubt it for some agencies.
Clearly there are a number of factors contributing to the delay. One is that law enforcement is interested in analyzing computers even in traditional crimes because they have found so much good evidence on people's hard drives. Two, there simply aren't enough people doing this work due to lack of qualified personnel and due to budget constraints the problem likely won't go away, ever. Lastly and no less importantly, there's just a ton of information being produced each year in this digital age. Carroll said that in 2008 more content was produced online than humanity produced in traditional forms (paper and ink) over the last 5000 years. Sure, not all of that data is relevant to case work, but some of it is and it takes time to analyze what's relevant.
Carroll has been advocating for a phased approach for a while now and he repeated the call during his talk. Law enforcement agencies should take a triage approach and try to build enough of a case without completely analyzing systems that they can get suspects to plea bargain and thus clear out some of the case load, at least for the more mild offenders. This is something I've told students as well, yes we want to analyze every piece of evidence that we collect, unless of course we can build a strong case without doing all that comprehensive work and short-circuit the process through a plea bargain.
One more thing about Carroll, he's funny. You want that in morning speaker.
Following Carrol,
Chris Kelly Managing Attorney for the Cybercrime Division of Massachusetts' Attorney General's Office addressed the audience. Kelly had some great stories about some really stupid criminals, the ones who get caught, generally are, but one guy rose above the rest by snapping a picture of himself with someone's cell phone while he was in the act of robbing that someone's home. Good times.
Kelly started out talking about how much things have changed in the cybercrime world. We've gone from phone phreakers, defacements and obnoxious worms to organized criminal networks, terrorism and traditional crimes that involve computers as sources of evidence. As an example of the latter, consider a
case in my area where a college professor was convicted of killing his ex-wife. One piece of evidence found on his home computer was search history about ways to kill people. He claimed he was doing research for a novel. Along these lines, Kelly brought up the case of
Neil Entwistle who killed his wife and daughter. In his search history were queries about how to kill people.
Kelly also spoke about some of the training they are offering to law enforcement including the need for first responders to stop pulling the plug and to perform collection of volatile evidence. He played a hilarious clip from CSI of cell phone forensic analysis that had everyone in the room laughing.
At this point, I'm sorry to say, I had to cut out, but a user panel assembled to discuss aspects of forensics in law enforcement. The panel was to have included Carroll, Kelly,
Andrew Bonillo, Special Agent/Computer Forensic Examiner at the U.S. Secret Service;
Richard Brittson, retired detective, New York City Police Department;
Jennifer Kolde, Computer Scientist with the FBI San Diego Division's National Security Cyber Squad;
Cindy Murphy, detective, City of Madison, WI Police Department;
Ken Privette, Special Agent in Charge of Digital Evidence Services, United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General;
Paul J. Vitchock, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington Field Office; and
Elizabeth Whitney, Forensic Computer Examiner, City-County Bureau of Identification, Raleigh, NC.
I apologize if I missed anyone on the list, because I missed the panel, I'm going off of the agenda so some of these folks may not have been there and others may have been on the panel in their place. I have looked over some of the presentations that were given and I'm sure I missed some great content and as someone who frequently works opposite law enforcement, I wish I could have caught this panel.
After lunch,
Dr. Doug White Director of the
FANS Lab at Roger Williams University spoke about several different topics related to forensics and the courtroom including some cases where admissability of evidence came into play. I got a little lost at one point while White was speaking about this. His slides referred to US. V. Richardson 583 F. Supp. 2d 694 (W.D. PA 2008) with the sub-bullet referring to hacker defense, but the only thing I can find about
the case online indicates that there were scoping issues with a warrant rather than a hacker defense.
White brought up another interesting case, U. S. v. Carter 549 F. Supp. 2d (D. Nev. 2008), discussed
here, where the IP address of a suspect's system was deemed circumstantial evidence and could not be used to tie an individual to the crime. Lesson for investigators, get as much supporting evidence as you can.
White talked about the
Adam Walsh Act that limits defense attorneys and experts to "reasonable access" to the evidence in cases that involve the exploitation of children. Reasonable access generally means at the law enforcement agency during normal business hours. This is a well intentioned law that has cost me some business but if it prevents children from suffering at the hands of incompetent practitioners who lose hard drives or otherwise leak evidence, then it's a good thing.
One great recommendation White made was to spend downtime coming up with simple ways to explain complex topics. There are lots of things those of us in tech take for granted, like IP addressing and NAT, but when we have to explain them to non-technical folks it can be difficult. Spending time to write clear and easy to understand explanations that can be quickly added to the appendix of a report saves time. It's like developers reusing code.
Following White's talk
Craig Ball, trial lawyer and forensic expert, touched on this same idea during his lightning talk as part of the user panel on challenges in the court room. Ball is a wonderful presenter. He struck me as a very intelligent, thoughtful and friendly gentleman (he's a lawyer?!). Ball had a great slide deck loaded with graphics including some simple animations that he uses to explain complex topics in simple ways to members of the jury, things like how a hard drive works.
Ball also mentioned using visualization software for turning timelines into nice looking charts. I believe he said he uses a product called Time Map, but a quick search reveals there are quite a few different products on the market. Check out Ball's
website where he has loads of materials available for free. I would love to see Ball at work in the court room. I hope to catch him giving a longer presentation at some point in the future.
Also on the panel with Ball were White,
Gary Kessler, Associate Professor of Computer and Digital Forensics and Director of the Center for Digital Investigations at Chamberlain College;
Bret Padres Direcor of Digital Forensics for Stroz Friedberg and co-host of the Cyberspeak podcast and
Larry Daniel, principal examiner for Guardian Digital Forensics. I may have missed someone,
Dave Kleiman was on the agenda, but his slides aren't on the conference CD and I can't remember him being on the panel, this is not to say that if he was on the panel, he didn't have anything noteworthy to say. Rather, it's a reflection on my own poor memory and the fact that I'm writing this more than a week after the event.
Kessler's question was to rank the qualities in order of importance that an investigator should have and to explain his ranking. I liked Kessler's answer because he took the list given to him (analysis skills, acquisition skills, data recovery skills, report writing skills (Kessler expanded this to communication skills), law enforcement background, computer science background, problem solving skills, integrity and caution) and he added his own qualities of curiosity, technical astuteness and tenacity.
Kessler's overall number one choice was integrity, something I happen to agree with. And his least important qualities were a computer science background followed by a law enforcement background. For those of us in the field who lack a computer science degree and a law enforcement background, it's easy to agree with Kessler's putting those at the bottom of the list. His second most important quality was technical astuteness. Oddly enough, I know some folks with computer science degrees, who have difficulty with technology outside of their narrow field of specialization.
Kessler made a point about good examiners that I've heard repeated by others in the field. So much of the job is about being tenacious. Hard problems are hard and many times there are no quick wins, the examiner who sticks with it and works through the adversity is the one you want working for you.
At this point, I had to cut out and catch a flight. All in all, this was the greatest incident response and forensics focused conference I've attended. If you work in the field, you should try and attend next year, this is not a normal SANS event, it's really a single track conference bookended by the training that SANS if known for.
I hope to see you there next year.
