Computer Forensic ‘Expert’ Witnesses, Who is Representing You?

Computer forensic experts deal with some of the most grave and serious of criminal cases that involve digital evidence. However it may be surprising to hear that currently there is no regulatory body to ensure the quality of their work, their security, and the expert’s individual’s background. It is a different case for those forensic companies who work for prosecuting bodies such as police forces and law enforcement agencies, as they are normally independently regulated by the instructing body and undergo rigorous vetting. Forensic companies working solely for the defence however, have the same access to the same evidence involved in these cases, yet nobody is actively monitoring their activities…In theory a one man band with a computer and the appropriate software could take on criminal defence cases which range from fraud, terrorism and drugs offences, to indecent images of children and grooming charges.

In a Home Office document produced last year this point is covered and endorsed by Minister Joan Ryan; ‘Creating a forensic science regulatory function is the most appropriate way of overseeing quality, standards and integrity in forensic science and maintaining public confidence’.

Why regulate the forensic services market?

The Home Office report covers a number of areas; best practice, quality assurance, and, from a commercial point of view, a level playing field for independent suppliers in the face of a growing market and increased competition.

Get The Latest DFIR News!

Top DFIR articles in your inbox every month.


Unsubscribe any time. We respect your privacy - read our privacy policy.

What would such a regulatory body seek to check?

1. Physical facilities – are the evidence storage rooms, which hold damning and serious evidence, secure and up to standard? Who has access to the evidence, is it tracked when moved from location to location?

2. Personnel – do they receive criminal background checks to help ensure they don’t have a hidden agenda for working in these types of companies?

3. Management – are they providing adequate support facilities for staff? Unfortunately, in this business investigators will frequently come across distressing images and scenarios as a matter of course. Are procedures in place such as counselling, personal development, and careful monitoring?

4. Are the investigators qualified? Forensic investigators need to be trained in industry standard software EnCase and have continuous training on ever changing technologies. Without which they may not do a thorough and appropriate investigation, and ultimately not provide a proper defence, potentially seeing innocent people put behind bars.

The majority of criminal cases now include at least one form of digital evidence, whether it is a mobile phone, an iPod, or a computer, and where there is a prosecution there must be a defence. Computer Forensic companies providing defences are becoming involved with seriously high profile criminal cases on a regular basis and should undergo the same monitoring and regulation that the prosecuting bodies receive.

For more information please visit www.cy4or.co.uk

Leave a Comment

Latest Videos

Quantifying Data Volatility for IoT Forensics With Examples From Contiki OS

Forensic Focus 22nd June 2022 5:00 am

File timestamps are used by forensics practitioners as a fundamental artifact. For example, the creation of user files can show traces of user activity, while system files, like configuration and log files, typically reveal when a program was run. 

Despite timestamps being ubiquitous, the understanding of their exact meaning is mostly overlooked in favor of fully-automated, correlation-based approaches. Existing work for practitioners aims at understanding Windows and is not directly applicable to Unix-like systems. 

In this paper, we review how each layer of the software stack (kernel, file system, libraries, application) influences MACB timestamps on Unix systems such as Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and macOS.

We examine how POSIX specifies the timestamp behavior and propose a framework for automatically profiling OS kernels, user mode libraries and applications, including compliance checks against POSIX.

Our implementation covers four different operating systems, the GIO and Qt library, as well as several user mode applications and is released as open-source.

Based on 187 compliance tests and automated profiling covering common file operations, we found multiple unexpected and non-compliant behaviors, both on common operations and in edge cases.

Furthermore, we provide tables summarizing timestamp behavior aimed to be used by practitioners as a quick-reference.

Learn more: https://dfrws.org/presentation/a-systematic-approach-to-understanding-macb-timestamps-on-unixlike-systems/

File timestamps are used by forensics practitioners as a fundamental artifact. For example, the creation of user files can show traces of user activity, while system files, like configuration and log files, typically reveal when a program was run.

Despite timestamps being ubiquitous, the understanding of their exact meaning is mostly overlooked in favor of fully-automated, correlation-based approaches. Existing work for practitioners aims at understanding Windows and is not directly applicable to Unix-like systems.

In this paper, we review how each layer of the software stack (kernel, file system, libraries, application) influences MACB timestamps on Unix systems such as Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and macOS.

We examine how POSIX specifies the timestamp behavior and propose a framework for automatically profiling OS kernels, user mode libraries and applications, including compliance checks against POSIX.

Our implementation covers four different operating systems, the GIO and Qt library, as well as several user mode applications and is released as open-source.

Based on 187 compliance tests and automated profiling covering common file operations, we found multiple unexpected and non-compliant behaviors, both on common operations and in edge cases.

Furthermore, we provide tables summarizing timestamp behavior aimed to be used by practitioners as a quick-reference.

Learn more: https://dfrws.org/presentation/a-systematic-approach-to-understanding-macb-timestamps-on-unixlike-systems/

YouTube Video UCQajlJPesqmyWJDN52AZI4Q_i0zd7HtluzY

A Systematic Approach to Understanding MACB Timestamps on Unixlike Systems

Forensic Focus 21st June 2022 5:00 am

This error message is only visible to WordPress admins

Important: No API Key Entered.

Many features are not available without adding an API Key. Please go to the YouTube Feed settings page to add an API key after following these instructions.

Latest Articles

Share to...