Re: More info on dd?

From: Jason Robertson (jasonat_private)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 10:00:10 PDT

  • Next message: Tom Arseneault: "RE: More info on dd? -"

    Okay since, I wasn't specific enough.
    
    The reason to do a full bit by bit copy such as with dd, is that the 
    script kiddies now have tools to hide executables files within the 
    sludge space on the drive.  I actually had one machine that was 
    compromised in this manner. The only way I detected it, was a bit by 
    bit read of the drive.
    
    if you want to do a quick check on the drive, use tools like 
    ghost(without the full copy option), or rsync, or tape backup, but if 
    you want plan to go to court these will not hold up in court,  it's 
    even unknown if dd copies will hold up in court.  Though the original 
    drive pulled from the system is more likely to withstand the 
    prosecution.
    
    And you will know a computer savvy lawyer, he will ask for the sludge 
    as part of the discovery.
    
    jason
    
    --------------------------
    Actually in my past, I have seen, people running programs out of the 
    sludge, albeit with tools, but it can be done.  So hiding with the 
    right number of tools you can do such fun stuff, as hide the process 
    and the corresponding files.
    
    Jason
    
    On 14 Oct 2002 at 14:25, Volker Tanger wrote:
    
    Date sent:      	Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:25:48 +0200
    From:           	Volker Tanger <volker.tangerat_private>
    Organization:   	DiSCON GmbH
    To:             	Alvin Oga <alvin.secat_private-Consulting.com>
    Copies to:      	forensicsat_private
    Subject:        	Re: More info on dd?
    
    > Greetings!
    > 
    > Alvin Oga wrote:
    > > 
    > > anyway.. so goes my limited understanding ...
    > > tar(block/sector level apps ) vs dd(bit level apps )  type of apps
    > 
    > Ooookay, back to beginnings. We're on "forensics@..." here.
    > So you will want to have ALL data you can get a hold on/of.
    > 
    > Quite some evidence can be hidden in (presumedly) deleted files, etc.
    > (see e.g. the current Scan-of-the-Month at 
    > http://www.honeynet.org/scans/scan24/).
    > 
    > So for FORENSICS a binary copy is the right choice (e.g. 
    > http://www.wyae.de/docs/img_dd.php) - whereas for FUNCTIONAL cloning 
    > other means will be faster and/or more reliable (e.g. 
    > http://www.wyae.de/docs/img_rsync.php).
    > 
    > Bye
    > 
    > Volker Tanger
    > IT-Security Consulting
    > 
    > -- 
    > discon gmbh
    > Wrangelstraße 100
    > D-10997 Berlin
    > 
    > fon    +49 30 6104-3307
    > fax    +49 30 6104-3461
    > 
    > volker.tangerat_private
    > http://www.discon.de/
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------
    > 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
    > 
    > 
    
    
    --
    Jason Robertson                
    Now at the Nation Research Council.
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    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 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 10:03:14 PDT