Part One: Simple Steps To Secure Your Client During Litigation

September 11, 2012

In the past year, there has been a distinct uptick in cases involving data breach and key logging malware- especially in family law cases. This uptick is not by anonymous, random third parties, but rather by the actual litigants in a case.

Part of the reason for the uptick is that “bugging” someone’s computer  or cell phone (electronic intercept) has gotten significantly easier. Most people can handle installing software.  Likewise with breaking into someone’s webmail, banking, or other online accounts.

Here are steps your client can take, right now, to protect their information and communications:

  • Create a List of Electronic Assets – Experience shows that, without a list, things will be overlooked.  Have your client list out cell phone, webmail, social network, and online banking accounts. In the same manner, have them list out things like wifi and home network assets.  This list is the starting point.
  • Change Passwords and Password Recovery Questions – Simply changing passwords is not enough. Password recovery questions (“What is the name of your favorite pet?”) are an easy way for someone who is familiar with your client to gain entry to their online resources.
  • Avoid Password Reuse – Using the same password for everything is a recipe for disaster. Understandably, it can be an inconvenience to use different passwords everywhere, but there are ways to make meaningful passwords that are easy to remember. Here is a full write-up on password reuse.
  • Review WiFi Security – If the opposing side in a matter was the one that set up the home wireless network, then all they need to do is be within range to join back on the network and gain access to systems or to “sniff” and view network traffic (including your client’s passwords, communications, etc.).
  • Review Joint Cellular Accounts – Depending on the carrier, joint cellular plans can give the opposing party access to endpoints in voice and text communications. Some carriers may actually have access to the content of text messages online. While TRO and data protection may prevent a direct change to the account or plan, your client may consider using a pay-as-you-go plan.

These are some simple steps that can be taken with minimal cost, and yet they will provide an immediate boost to your client’s security stance.

Tomorrow: Part 2- Simple Steps In Case of Breach

If you or your client feel that there has already been a breach, or you are facing a particularly aggressive or knowledgeable opposition, you may consider inquiring about our Client Information Security package (CISP).

The CISP is a flat-rate, full assessment of your client’s information security and includes a drop-in firewall with logging and 24/7 monitoring for intrusion attempts, malware activity, and other breach behavior.  Vidoc Razor not only will assess the security of your client, but fixes the issues identified.  All hardware is provided by Vidoc Razor.

You can find more information by clicking HERE.

Leave a Comment » | Forensics Beyond the Hard Drive, Tools and Tips | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by inforensics

Quick Tips For Preserving Social Media

June 6, 2011

There is no arguing that social media sites are a boon for information related to a case, and not just for Family law, but also for corporate litigation as well.  We have had tremendous success with using social sites to tie component pieces of  a hard drive or cell phone investigation together.

The proliferation of social websites like Facebook can create discovery issues, though: How do you properly preserve a social site?  How do you deal with the opposing side arguing that the request to preserve is “overly burdensome”?

In this article I will walk you through three of the most popular social media sites and some techniques to preserve them easily.

1: Facebook (www.FaceBook.com):  Facebook is probably the easiest site to preserve.  The user can simply go to “Account Settings”, scroll down to “Download Your Information”, and click on “learn more”.  From the Facebook description:

“This tool lets you download a copy of your information, including your photos and videos, posts on your Wall, all of your messages, your friend list and other content you have shared on your profile. Within this zip file you will have access to your data in a simple, browseable manner.”

Once the user clicks “Download”, FaceBook will aggregate the information and email a link to the download.  Depending on how much information is there, this can take several minutes or even hours.

2: LinkedIn (www.LinkedIN.com):  LinkedIN is a site geared more towards a professional profile than Facebook.  We have been successful in using it to uncover additional email addresses, business documents, associations and affiliations primarily in Corporate cases, but it has factored into family law cases before.

The good news is that, while the Facebook preservation method is only useful if you are the specific user, LinkedIN can be documented for the profile information of other users.  The bad news is that it is slightly more complex than Facebook to preserve (but not much more!).

The easiest way to archive a LinkedIN account is to already have one yourself, or to create one.  NOTE: If the person you are archiving has LinkedIN’s upgraded service, or has agreed to let others see when they view a profile, they will be able to see that you viewed their profile.  I’m not going to encourage you to break the Terms of Service by creating an archive account, but that is one way to get around this.

Next, you will want to navigate to Profile-> Profile Organizer.  This is actually a paid service offered by LinkedIN, but usually it has a free 30-day trial.  More importantly, the free trial does not require a credit card.

Once you sign up for the Profile Organizer, you will be able to search for specific individuals, companies, etc.  When you find a profile you can save it to your organizer, archive it, and print it to a PDF.

3: Twitter (www.Twitter.com): Unlike the others, Twitter doesn’t have an actual built-in archiving functionality.  Twitter DOES have a great advanced search function that you can access at: search.twitter.com

Once on the Twitter search site, look for the “Advanced Search” link.  This will allow you to drill into searches by user, dates, topics, specific words or phrases, locations, etc.
Once you have search results, you can print to PDF, save the list, or use the nifty RSS link in the upper right called “Feed for this query”.

Leave a Comment » | Forensics Beyond the Hard Drive, Tools and Tips | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by inforensics

Eight Strategies To Control Information Forensic Costs

April 12, 2011

I’m often told that the biggest barrier to introducing information forensics to a potential case is the cost of doing so, and I believe it.  It is hard to explain to a client that they may expend resources with no return on the expenditure, and yet effective use of information forensics can be a valuable part of case strategy.  Here are eight strategies to effectively control information forensic cost:

  1. Prioritize Systems. In cases where there are multiple computer systems, hard drives or electronic devices involved, try to identify which ones are more likely to contain key evidence or facts in the case.  Your expert should be willing and able to help you do this, based on the facts of the case and the role of the devices involved.
  2. Image and Hold. Perform forensic imaging of the systems and devices involved to preserve them, but unless there are other factors involved you may not need to do analysis on ALL the systems at once.  Start with the high priority systems, and then see if there is likely to be value on the other systems or devices involved.  “Image and Hold” can also be an effective early strategy for a single computing device as well.
  3. Be Selective. We are often approached with multiple cell phones and hard drives.  One of the first questions I ask is if the cell phones were potentially backed up on one of the computer systems.  If so, then we can often process the backup (or “synch”) of the cell phones just as though we had the cell phone itself.  This helps to prevent duplicating cost.
  4. Evaluate Before Analyze. Full disclosure: This is a self-serving statement, in that Vidoc Razor runs a flat-rate evaluation service, but that doesn’t make it any less true.  Your expert must be able to provide an evaluation of the computer systems involved to identify which devices are useful to a case, versus ones that are redundant or don’t contain case useful information.  Make sure that the evaluation is  in context with the case, and not a simple cookie-cutter print-out of log files.
  5. Look for Flat-Rate Services. I have heard many complaints of forensic costs that run wild because of hourly rates.  It isn’t hard for a forensic service to provide cost-effective, flat rates that still provide high-quality results.  Your expert should be interested in looking for a long-range relationship as part of your legal arsenal, rather than getting rich off of a single big case.
  6. Understand the Differences Between Data, Information, and Intelligence. This seems like semantics, but it really isn’t.  Data is a stream of un-evaluated, un-interpreted symbols.  Information is what data becomes once it is useful (in context).  Intelligence is what information becomes once it becomes fact.  Once you stop thinking about “data forensics” and start utilizing “information forensics” you can find all three in a variety of places beyond the hard drive, or as a supplement to the evaluation or analysis performed on a hard drive or cell phone.
  7. Know Your End-Game. It is easy to get caught in the flood of information that can open up in the effective use of information forensics.  It is equally easy to chase down information that doesn’t necessarily support your overall case strategy.  For each new  tributary that opens up to you, ask yourself if it is actually something that supports your end-strategy, or potentially alters it.  If not, then why spend resources to chase it?
  8. Take a Deep Breath. If I had a nickel for every time I have heard the phrase “I am completely computer illiterate”, I would be living on easy street.  In a Yogi Berra-esque way: “This ain’t rocket surgery.”  For some reason the mere exposure to electronic investigation causes people to shut down.  While information forensics can be very technical, I promise you that the average attorney has dealt with much more complicated issues.  Take a deep breath and enjoy the new strategies and brand new streams of information that open up to you and your client and augment your ability to argue your cases.

Next Post:  Effective Information Forensic Strategy

Leave a Comment » | Forensics Beyond the Hard Drive, Inforensics Opinion, Tools and Tips | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by inforensics

A Simple Plan to Ruin Your Boss: Plant Child Porn On His PC

August 10, 2010

A simple plan to ruin your boss: plant child porn on his PC.

This occurred in the UK in 2006 (it is just now working its way through the courts), and seems extreme.  The reality is that planted evidence can occur in many different forms:  Planted documents, images, and even emails.

While the deception in the UK case was broken through cell phone activity (the perpetrator made an “anonymous” phone call, and had been heard bragging about his exploits at a BBQ), a good forensic examiner goes beyond simple modified, accessed and created times to review other system information that backs up the method of arrival of the information on the system itself:

  • The insertion of USB devices: USB devices can leave quite a trail on a system, including the device manufacturer, type, even sometimes serial numbers.  Further activity supporting the insertion of the device can sometimes be correlated between file history analysis and searches for activity surrounding the specific device ID.
  • Metadata contained within the purported documents: Images, videos, audio files, PDF documents and other file types often have information regarding the date of creation (not necessarily introduction to the system), authorship, serial or license numbers of the product used, sometimes even information about the system that created them.
  • System files: Sometimes the introduction or generation of a file triggers other supporting files on the system.  Examination of these files can tell an investigator whether the file information matches up with what the system knows about the file.
  • Surrounding activity: Other activity on the system related to usage can be an indicator as well.  For example: If a file was supposedly downloaded from the internet, one would expect to see certain other activity surrounding the download if it was generated by the user.

A lot of these same techniques can be used to attack or defend other claims of the so-called “trojan defense” (aka “A Virus must have done it”).

Researching deliberate obfuscation CAN be a challenge, but in situations similar to the UK case a client is not at all dead in the water if an information forensics analyst is competent and able to look at the “Evidence Beyond the Hard Drive”™.

Leave a Comment » | Cases, Investigation | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by inforensics

Crimes Against Children Research Center: Trends in Arrests of “Online Predators”

April 2, 2009

The Crimes Against Children Research Center has released a new report noting that the types of online sex crime  offenses haven’t changed much, but the profile of your average online predator has been shifting.

I have read the actual report as well as the methodology (methodology available here, report available here) and, while I am no expert in report methodology, I can not spot any serious flaws.  This seems to be a well thought out study that avoids the typical hysteria and FUD that is oh-so-common in this type of work.

Some notable findings:

  • Online sex crimes only account for 1% of all arrests for sex crimes committed against children and youth.
  • Most of the arrests involved solicitation of undercover officers and not actual youth.
  • The percentage of internet users ages 12-17 rose by 20% between 2000 and 2006, at the same time there was a 21% increase in arrests of offenders who solicited youth online for sex and a 381% increase in arrests of offenders who solicited undercover officers.
  • There was a significant increase in arrests of offenders between the ages of 18-25.

There were some distinct differences between this report’s findings and my own perceptions:

  • Most offenders were open about their motives in their online communication with youth.
  • Only 4% of those arrested (in total) were registered sex offenders.
  • The majority of contacts did not occur through social network sites (social network sites accounted for just over 30%).

For those that have kids or are involved in family law, internet crime or data forensics and investigations this is likely to be an interesting read.

Any further comments and observations would be great too!

Leave a Comment » | Inforensics News | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by inforensics

The Fifth Amendment and Sebastien Boucher: Beyond Knee-Jerk Response

February 27, 2009

In December of 2006, Sebastien Boucher was crossing the US border when he was stopped and his laptop was reviewed by ICE officials.   The laptop was in his backseat and, according to documents, the drive containing the child pornography was accessible without requiring a password.

Mr. Boucher was Mirandized, but waived his rights and continued to talk to the agent.  During this conversation Mr. Boucher told the agent that he sometimes accidentally downloaded child pornography but would then delete the files when he realized what they were.  The agent requested that Mr. Boucher show him where he stored the files that he downloaded and Mr. Boucher directed him to a drive “Z”.

The agent continued to search the laptop and found several more instances of child pornography.  Mr. Boucher was subsequently arrested and the laptop seized (it was shutdown).

Nine days later a forensic bit image was made of the drive and the drive “Z” was found to be encrypted by PGP, and the content unaccessible without the encryption key which, curiously enough, Mr. Boucher has refused to turn over.

In November 2007 Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier granted Sebastien Boucher’s motion to quash the subpoena directing him to turn over his encryption key for the drive, citing his fifth amendment rights.

An appeal was filed and U.S. District Judge William Sessions in Vermont ruled this week that Mr. Boucher does not have a fifth amendment right to keep the files encrypted.

What motivates me most to write about this case is the knee-jerk response that will surely follow by those that only read news releases and not the actual filings in the case.  Both judges have raised some fascinating issues regarding the fifth amendment and this specific case, and both the granting of the motion to quash and the subsequent reversal hinged on specific facts in this case, and NOT a blanket decision as some blogs will have you believe.

Judge Niedermeier weighed issues regarding compulsion to testify (subpoena) and the various components that make up a valid fifth amendment argument. In pondering these points the judge notes:

Both parties agree that the contents of the laptop do not enjoy Fifth Amendment
protection as the contents were voluntarily prepared and are not testimonial. See id. at 409-10 (holding previously created work documents not privileged under the Fifth Amendment). Also, the government concedes that it cannot compel Boucher to disclose the password to the grand jury because the disclosure would be testimonial. The question remains whether entry of the password, giving the government access to drive Z, would be testimonial and therefore privileged.

The state evidently agreed to “not use the production of the password against Boucher.”  In so doing the state felt it would remove the testimonial aspect of entering the password.  Judge Niedermeier rejected this outright, citing United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).

In rejecting further arguments, Judge Niedermeier pointed out that the password was something in Boucher’s mind, and further stated:

This information is unlike a document, to which the foregone conclusion doctrine usually applies, and unlike any physical evidence the government could already know of. It is pure testimonial production rather than physical evidence having testimonial aspects. Compelling Boucher to produce the password compels him to display the contents of his mind to incriminate himself.

In his reversal, Judge Sessions notes that neither side questions the fact that “the contents of the laptop were voluntarily prepared or compiled and are not testimonial, and therefore do not enjoy Fifth Amendment protection.”, but notes that the root of the issue is the production of the password that in effect causes the accused to “‘disclose the contents of his own mind’”.

He also mentions the “compelling” aspect of the subpoena and notes that there are two scenarios under which the act of production in response to a subpoena may communicate incriminating facts:

(1) ‘if the existence and location of the subpoenaed papers are unknown to the government’; or (2) where production would ‘implicitly authenticate’ the documents.” Id. (quoting United States v. Fox, 721 F.2d 32, 36 (2d Cir.1983)).

Drawing from this the judge concludes that because Boucher already let the Government see the drive and the contents (unencrypted) and because the Government does not require Boucher’s production of the unencrypted drive to link him to the files on his computer, then the production is not considered incriminating and so the fifth amendment protection is not valid.

I have to say that without reading the opinions I would assume that because Mr. Boucher was Mirandized, willingly volunteered information regarding the existence and contents of the drive (prior to shutdown and encryption) and willingly allowed a Government agent to browse his drive I would have assumed that he had rung a bell that could not be unrung.

[  Copies of the opinions will be uploaded soon]

1 Comment | Cases, Production | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by inforensics