The use, and understanding, of counter-forensics measures is where an immediate response capability comes in...the sooner you detect and respond to something 'unusual', the more likely you are to be able to access and recover pertinent data. Why is that? Well, as we've said, computer systems are very active things, even when all we can see is a nice desktop with the mouse pointer just sitting there. Of all of the systems, Windows are probably the most active, with a considerable amount of activity going on under the hood. What this means is that anything that's deleted (cookies, Event Log records, files, etc.), and those sectors are available for re-allocation, will likely fall victim to the 'counter-forensics' measures "built into" the operating system.
What am I talking about? Anyone remember Windows XP? What happens, by default, every 24 hours on a Windows XP system? A Restore Point is created...and that can be a LOT of new files being created and lot of previously unallocated sectors being consumed. As new files are created, older ones may be deleted. And then every three days, there's a limited defrag that runs. Windows 7 is subject to similar activity...and in some cases, more so. Windows 7 ships with a LOT of default Scheduled Tasks that do things like backup the main Registry hives every 10 days, consuming previously unallocated sectors. When you edit MSOffice files, temporary copies of the files are created, consuming previously-unallocated sectors, and then the temp file is 'deleted' when you close the application. As such, there's a lot that goes on on a Windows system that we don't even see or even think about. How about Windows Updates? Do you use iTunes or QuickTime? When those applications are installed, a Scheduled Task is created to run on a regular basis to look for updates, and these can be installed automatically.
The alternative (and in many cases, currently employed) approach is to, once an event has been identified, provide incomplete information to senior management, so that they can begin shopping around for a consulting firm that provides response services. While this is going on, we would hope that no one is doing anything on the systems (this isn't often the case) in question, but as we know, as time passes, things do happen all on their own. When a response firm is finally selected, additional time is required for contract negotiations, the responders need to travel on-site, and then they need to begin working with you to understand your infrastructure and scope the incident...all while data is (potentially, probably, most likely) leaving your infrastructure.
Consider this...is your organization subject to any compliance regulations or legislature? Many that are have little choice in notification reporting...if you cannot explicitly show which records were exposed, you have to report on ALL records that were potentially exposed. Which would you rather do...report on the records that were exposed, or report on all records that may potentially have been exposed (because you don't know)?
So...in summary, on the surface, counter-forensics techniques may appear to pose significant challenges for analysts, but the fact is that many of those challenges can be overcome through early detection, and immediate response by knowledgeable analysts and responders. The more pertinent information that is available to responders and analysts through early detection will significantly impact that immediate response, taking you from "something happened on a bunch of systems" to "this is what happened, and only these systems were affected", drastically reducing the impact of an incident to your infrastructure.
0 Yorumlar