The Isec research looks interesting, but will probably not have a major impact on the lives of forensic researchers, said Jim Butterworth, Guidance's director of incident response.
Because forensic systems are typically not connected to external networks, they cannot be remotely controlled via the Internet, he said. So even if an attacker could use these techniques to compromise one forensic snapshot of a system, a second forensic tool would provide the real picture. "It's just not that big of a threat because I know a lot of other mitigating steps to take," he said. "A well-trained person does not use a single tool."
Another forensic researcher agreed that the Isec Partners research is interesting, but of limited use to criminals.
That's because most serious attackers are already good enough at covering their tracks that they will never be caught, according to James Foster, president and chief scientist at Ciphent. "If you're an attacker you can basically beat the system," he said. "In my opinion, the bigger problem is that the product is not going to provide the data that you want."
However, there is one group that may pay special attention to the Stamos team: defense lawyers. If Isec shows that unauthorized software could have been run on an investigator's PC, it could ultimately undermine the usefulness of these forensic tools in court, said Chris Ridder, residential fellow at the Stanford University Law School Center for Internet and Society
"The big risk is for someone to execute arbitrary code," he said "If there's a risk that the evidence has been compromised or if something has been planted by a third party... then you can call into question the accuracy of the software and possibly get it thrown out."
Butterworth, who has been grilled many times by defense lawyers, agreed. "I wouldn't put anything past a defense attorney ," he said.
__________________
insert sig here
|