I'm just not sure where the hostility to Mike's position comes from, on the face of it he seems to be making a reasonable point?
Happy to clarify Jamie. No I have no problem with Mike. Mike is no strange to interrogation as an ex-DI from Hampshire Constabulary. To him my line of question probably made him feel right back at home again (just teasing Mike). In fact had Mike thought there was problem he would have called me or sent an emailed by now. He has not done neither.
Are there grounds for doubting the integrity of the .XRY software?
Jamie it is not for me to prove how XRY works, although I must say and remind you that you may wish to check back through your past emails on the subject of assessing XRY and look at the response we got from Mike and XRY. I still have my copy. It seems hardly right I should now be asked to give XRY a free training session when they refused the offer of free help the first time around.
Mike who sells XRY has made it clear in this forum that he believes Certified/Validated isn't possible. Really !!!! As Certified/Validated relates directly to the tool what is he admitting?
The Poll Questions are here and have been up since Feb 12th and it is only now, within the last few days, has it been suggested they are a problem. This has detracted from the objectives of this thread and to which I am grateful to Doug for not just steering us all back on track, his observations in relation to the article to which he has referred, but again highlighting the systems in use should be designed for examiners and not for examiners to have to jump through hoops in order to cope with a tool limitations.
Jamie it is not for me to prove how XRY works, although I must say and remind you that you may wish to check back through your past emails on the subject of assessing XRY and look at the response we got from Mike and XRY. I still have my copy. It seems hardly right I should now be asked to give XRY a free training session when they refused the offer of free help the first time around.
Greg, I think that's a highly inappropriate comment for a public forum. I'll contact you privately about it.
Mike who sells XRY has made it clear in this forum that he believes Certified/Validated isn't possible. Really !!!! As Certified/Validated relates directly to the tool what is he admitting?
Well, based on his comments here he seems to be admitting - and others seem to be agreeing with him - that it's not currently possible to certify the tool in question without an accepted methodology which can do the job within the time available. Clearly you know Mike, and the tool in question, far better than I do but if you're going to constantly undermine both of them in public then it seems only fair that you back up your case with more than just innuendo.
The Poll Questions are here and have been up since Feb 12th and it is only now, within the last few days, has it been suggested they are a problem. This has detracted from the objectives of this thread and to which I am grateful to Doug for not just steering us all back on track, his observations in relation to the article to which he has referred, but again highlighting the systems in use should be designed for examiners and not for examiners to have to jump through hoops in order to cope with a tool limitations.
The first concern about the poll questions was raised by Azrael on February 17th "I didn't actually vote, as I don't think that any of the options cover what I believe to be the case, as I _don't_ think that it is achievable"
I don't fully understand the line of your final paragraph above because I don't have a detailed enough understanding of the technical issues involved. Doug's post makes reference to his previous post which in turn references an article behind a pay wall. Perhaps if we can direct our efforts towards discussing a methodology which might make certification viable, someone might be inspired enough to actually put something down on paper for the Regulator (or equivalent body in the US).
Jamie
Jamie
I make it absolutely clear, there is no innuendo being made on my behalf. If I have offended anyone then truly that is not behind why I have been asking the questions that I have. You see I happen to believe and have faith in the idea that a range of tools (including Oxygen, Cellebrite/UFED XRY/XACT etc etc etc) with a bit of tweeking can or would reach a Certified/Validated tool status. But the desire has to be there from the manufacturers. They have to come to the matter fully convinced to meet such an objective. Alternative to this would be to create a range of tools that meet such a criteria at the outset, but I am hoping the current range of tool manufacturers would want to work with us.
How the detail to bring about Certified/Validated Scheme and who would administer are two others matter outside the objective of this Poll. Certified/Validated specifically to the tools is something that I am onto at present and which I think could hugely benefit examiners and tools alike. I am not being paid for that work - so I have no agenda.
Importantly, the purpose of this Poll is to seek a show of hands whether fundamentally the industry wants Certified/Validated tools. If there is a 'NO' consensus, that industry doesn't want it, I don't wish to force anyone to do something they do not want to do. But assuredly if the answer is 'NO' I wont waste anymore of my time or waste anyone elses.
The first concern about the poll questions was raised by Azrael on February 17th "I didn't actually vote, as I don't think that any of the options cover what I believe to be the case, as I _don't_ think that it is achievable"
Actually, I posted this on the 14th and it remains my primary issue
It seems to me that the poll is missing an important option, namely, that it would be desirable to have some sort of certification process if it were practical, but given the current state of affairs, requiring such would likely hamper legitimate investigations.
As is the case with any serious poll, the combination of choices should cover all possible options, even if one of the options is not to agree with any of the others.
I stand corrected!
With due respect to all parties posting here - I am going to make this my last post, regardless of what is said in response.
In my humble opinion, the discussion seems to be going in a rather circular direction and I do not want to add any more fuel to this fire. I was actually trying to be helpful, but this seems to have backfired on me. So I have learnt a valuable lesson here, thank you all.
It feels only right that I reply to some of the comments in order to correctly represent my company Micro Systemation
1) We are also for certification / validation of mobile phone forensic tools
2) We would support testing of our products by an independent body
3) We simply do not know how to attain this "at present" in a way that is acceptable to all parties
4) I didn’t say certified/validated products are not possible - I said I do not know how to achieve it at this stage. (Neither does anybody else it seems.)
5) We stand behind our product and in the absence of any independent validation - Micro Systemation will defend the product's validity in court to support our customers (assuming the examiner has been appropriately trained.) We cannot do any more than that at present.
By the way I didn’t ask for a free training session (Not sure where that came from?)
Personally I think that we all agree validation is a good idea - so now can we please move onto the new subject of how this is best achieved?
With due respect to all parties posting here - I am going to make this my last post, regardless of what is said in response.
Mike, I understand your feelings but hope you'll reconsider that position, your input is valuable (perhaps essential?)
Personally I think that we all agree validation is a good idea - so now can we please move onto the new subject of how this is best achieved?
Agreed.
Mike it is being organised for a number of examiners to meet up in Cheltenham. How far are you from GCHQ? We can pop in and see you.
AT+CMGL[=<stat>]
["REC UNREAD"/0]
AT+CMGL "REC UNREAD"
………………………or
char *saves = "abcd";
NSData *data = [[NSData alloc] initWithBytessaves length4];
BOOL test = [self writeToFiledata@"data"@"iph"];
- (BOOL)writeToFile(NSData *)data(NSString *)fileName(NSString *)extension
{
NSFileManager *fm = [NSFileManager defaultManager];
NSString *appFile = [[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResourcefileName ofTypeextension];
if (!appFile) // if file doesn't exist, create it
{
printf("File %s doesn't exist, so we create it", appFile);
return ([fm createFileAtPathappFile contentsdata attributesnil]);
}
else
return ([data writeToFileappFile atomicallyYES]);
}
NSString *appFile = [[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResourcefileName ofTypeextension];
…………….and so on….