RE: Imaging a "live" system

From: Mark Menz (markmenzat_private)
Date: Tue Jun 18 2002 - 08:40:57 PDT

  • Next message: Peter Kristolaitis: "Re: irc"

    When I did it last year it was to look at a employee and not let them know
    we were looking at them. I used (believe it or not) Back Orifice with a
    plugin to view individual sectors of the disk accross the network. Worked
    well. I then (with my partner) wrote a quick program to copy the disk
    accross the network from the suspect machine to another one. In this case it
    was a desktop we could not move and only had a limited time to do it prior
    tothe suspect comming back to his desk. Our program ram from a floppy. So
    there is one reason to do this. I can think of others as well.
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: H C [mailto:keydet89at_private]
    Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 6:31 AM
    To: forensicsat_private
    Cc: subscribeat_private
    Subject: RE: Imaging a "live" system
    
    
    > If you do then it's known changes to the system will
    be
    > made.  *However*, if you document those changes and
    move
    > in a methodically and sound manner, than I see no
    reason
    > why you cannot proceed.
    
    I'm still not all that clear on _why_ you'd ever want
    to perform imaging of a "live" system.  I can see why
    one would want to collect volatile data from the
    system, and then perhaps (based on decisions made
    regarding the situation) move on to disconnecting the
    system, and then imaging the drive.
    
    > One of the best things about a live system is the
    > volatile info
    
    Agreed.  However, I think we need to address the issue
    of methodologies...like develop one.  From my
    perspective at this point, very few admins are
    collecting this information.  Now, I understand that
    not every situation requires it, but some do...and I
    think admins aren't doing it for a couple of reasons.
    
    First, there isn't even a framework, let alone a
    methodology, available.
    
    Second, no one really wants to do all the repetitive
    documenting of their actions...they'd rather just get
    on with it.
    
    Third...and I think this was brought out at CanSecWest
    to a degree...most don't know how to interpret the
    data they do get.  The issues seem to be as much a
    lack of time as they are a lack of skill.
    
    What if there were some way to collect this
    information in a "clean" manner that also performed
    the necessary documentation?  What if the collection
    of volatile (and some non-volatile) information could
    be automated and thoroughly documented?
    
    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 : Tue Jun 18 2002 - 08:51:50 PDT