Notifications
Clear all

The need for "under the hood" knowledge

39 Posts
8 Users
0 Reactions
4,071 Views
psu89
(@psu89)
Estimable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 118
 

Chris Taylor's Presentation was VERY good. Sharing that pdf would be a good thing. I have a copy and I was at the seminar and I learned a lot and realized that there is much more to learn.


   
ReplyQuote
(@fatrabbit)
Estimable Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 132
 

I think the argument runs a little deeper than that. You’re correct in saying that a software tool isn’t inherently flawed because it allows unqualified or less able examiners to get results, it could only be accused of being intuitive and comprehensive. The flaw, or rather the problem stems from the fact that some examiners rely more on the tool and less on their knowledge of the underlying concepts. This gives rise to a situation where a sizeable number of analysts within the community could be missing artefacts etc because their tool doesn’t look for them or fails to report adequate information about them.

Also, somebody please post that .pdf!


   
ReplyQuote
arashiryu
(@arashiryu)
Estimable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 122
 

PM me with your email address and I'll send.


   
ReplyQuote
(@fatrabbit)
Estimable Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 132
 

PM sent, thank you.


   
ReplyQuote
keydet89
(@keydet89)
Famed Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 3568
Topic starter  

> missing artefacts etc because their tool doesn’t look for them

Or, as I've seen, the tool does show them (ie, most tools like EnCase and ProDiscover will show ADSs) but the analyst has no idea of the significance of the artifact in relation to the case.

In my write up of the "russiantopz" bot (available in the SecurityFocus archive), I wrote about how the administrator of the infected system looked at the Task Manager display and had no clue that a process called "statistics.exe" was in any way "unusual" or "suspicious" on systems. This same phenomenon is why lots of malware uses the name "svchost.exe".

Harlan


   
ReplyQuote
(@fatrabbit)
Estimable Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 132
 

Indeed, preying on the weakest link in the computer security chain, human ignorance.


   
ReplyQuote
(@armresl)
Noble Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 1011
 

I wouldn't call someone ignorant because they didn't know about a particular process.


   
ReplyQuote
(@fatrabbit)
Estimable Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 132
 

Ignorant meaning lacking education or knowledge or a general state of unawareness. I don’t mean to be sarcastic because you obviously know the definition, but how else would you describe such a person?


   
ReplyQuote
(@armresl)
Noble Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 1011
 

I was going off of the first definition.

uneducated in general


   
ReplyQuote
(@fatrabbit)
Estimable Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 132
 

Point taken. I didn't mean for lack of education to imply a sub-average intellect in general, I was referring to a lack of computer or computer forensics knowledge specifically.


   
ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 4
Share: