Reveal Critical Evidence And Crack More Cases With Carving Technology

Getting evidence from confiscated media devices has always been a challenge. Not only because of the difficulty in locating all the right data, but also because of the manual labor of exporting and importing the data once it’s found. To solve this, we’ve integrated best-in-class carving technology into the Griffeye Analyze platform.

The two major challenges

The first challenge when extracting data from a confiscated device is locating the data. For investigators, no matter the case, it is crucial to get hold of the right data in order to find critical clues and evidence. The problem is that data containing clues are often times hidden in different ways or removed to prevent it from being found, which can result in clues being missed and cases going unsolved.

The other challenge is time. As the size and number of digital media devices have grown, so has the average size of cases. And, as a result, the amount of time spent to export and import all the data. Forensic examiners and investigators often use one tool to extract data and another tool to import it to be analyzed, which results in ineffective workflows and longer turnaround times.

Get The Latest DFIR News!

Top DFIR articles in your inbox every month.


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

To provide a solution to these challenges, we’ve teamed up with BlueBear and their well-known LACE Carver.

Two tools into one – a huge time-saver

With the LACE Carver integrated into the Griffeye Analyze platform, users will be able to handle the whole investigation chain – from tracing all the data on the device as thoroughly and deeply as possible to processing and analyzing the data to find all the clues, identify relationships, and eventually crack the case. The data is automatically extracted from the device and imported directly into the Griffeye Analyze platform as part of the same process.

“For our combined users, this means that they will get a very powerful extraction tool as part of the tool that they are already using. Integrating the LACE Carver into the Griffeye Analyze platform and marketplace is a huge step towards making sure investigators have everything they need to do their job."
– Antoine Normand, CEO, BlueBear

Get hold of all the right data

Carving tools are used to locate and extract data. The LACE Carver scans for both file extensions and file types to locate images and videos as effectively as possible, and it can handle numerous digital media devices, forensic image formats, and ever-changing file types. It has the capacity to scan through formatted drives and locate data from both allocated and unallocated space where the data has been partially overwritten. The carver can also find images and videos embedded in other file types, such as documents or emails, as well as find data that has been password-protected or marked for deletion but is still intact.

The result: Cracked cases

All this together helps investigators work more effectively and, at the same time, get hold of data that would otherwise be hard – or near impossible – to find. Getting hold of the right data means obtaining critical clues and evidence that will result in more cases being solved.

“The result of this partnership is really the goal of everything we do, to provide the best solution there is for investigators to do their job more effectively, leading to reduced workload for investigator and cases being solved quicker.”
– Johann Hofmann, CEO, Griffeye

Find out more on Griffeye

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...