RE: Imaging a "live" system

From: Edward Nichols (enicholsat_private)
Date: Tue Jun 11 2002 - 12:16:22 PDT

  • Next message: Matthew.Brownat_private: "Incident Response and Digital Forensics Resource List update"

    I just had a presentation from the EnCase folks.  They have a system that 
    will acquire images from running computers (windows only for 
    now).  However, if you want an exact image in time, you will need to go 
    elsewhere.  Various backup products (Budtool and Netbackup come to mind) 
    can create file system images during backup, queuing pending writes to a 
    cache to the until the backup is finished.  This queuing is normally 
    transparent to the applications running on the system, however it is not 
    system transparent, meaning that  the I/O is redirected, and the kernel 
    modified.  You will be able to preserve the system data, however, I am not 
    sure these products allow for the backup of raw devices in such a way that 
    they allow for forensic analysis of slack space, etc.  Additionally, 
    dumping a live system typically creates a noticeable hit to system 
    performance, possibly alerting users of the system to your activity.  The 
    tradeoff is between time and accuracy;  The more time you take to dump a 
    live system the less noticeable it is from a system load perspective, and 
    the less accurate a picture of the system you will get.
    
    Forensically sound on the other hand is debatable.  If you mean can it 
    withstand the scrutiny of cross examination, then I would say probably 
    not.  I am not a lawyer and if you intend to use evidence ,gathered live, 
    in a court, I would consult with your DA's office or corporate legal 
    department.  I don't think data gathered from a live system is unsound, and 
    it can be used to help in determining whether a violation (of the law or 
    policy) occurred, however as always your mileage may vary.
    
    At 11:43 AM 6/10/2002 -0700, H C wrote:
    > > I would be interested in knowing what criteria
    >others
    > > are using for deciding to acquire an image from a
    >"live"
    > > system (*nix or Windows) and what you think the
    > > appropriate standards should be for acquiring the
    > > evidence in a forensically sound manner within the
    > > incident response context.
    >
    >I'm not clear on why you'd want to image a "live"
    >system...given the size of some of these drives, the
    >system will change between when you start and finish
    >the imaging process.
    >
    >For NT/2K systems specifically, I would recommend
    >collecting "volatile" data prior to imaging the
    >system.  I'll elaborate by way of example...assume a
    >system is found to have Sub7, and something about the
    >incident requires that an image be made of the drive.
    >If you simply shut down the system and image it, how
    >do you know that the Sub7 server was a running process
    >at the time that the system was shut down?  How do you
    >know who was connected?
    >
    >That being said, I'm working on a project to retrieve
    >and *document* the collection of volatile information
    >from a "victim" system.
    >
    >Carv
    >
    >
    >__________________________________________________
    >Do You Yahoo!?
    >Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
    >http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
    >
    >-----------------------------------------------------------------
    >This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
    >For more information on this free incident handling, management
    >and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
    For more information on this free incident handling, management 
    and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 14 2002 - 17:19:25 PDT