mailing list archives
RE: Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator
From: "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:02:24 +1100
From your example (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cccases.html) the DOJ has prosecuted only 110 cases
involving computer crime.
The current virus statistics (admittedly vendor bias is involved) has 50,000 and 60,000 incidents per hour.
Without getting complex and to keep this post simple (as the last was longer) - anecdotal evidence is not scientific
proof. The courts can not handle the volume of all incidents. There is no possible manner. Take an estimated worldwide
(based on extrapolation for US, AU and UK courts) of 600,000,000 hours of court time in total EVERYWHERE. For all the
courts in the world to handle the reported US cases alone would require them to complete all cases in .7 seconds each.
Again. Most incidents will never go to court. They can not, it is not viable or feasible. If we make all the lawyers on
earth into trial magistrates there will not be enough to do everything.
From: dave kleiman [mailto:dave () davekleiman com]
Sent: 10 February 2006 3:44
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator
I hope you are taking this as a friendly discussion
From: Craig Wright
Virus attacks etc as you put are incidents. The average
(and all but maybe a rare exception) organisation will
treat these as incidents. They do not take them to court
nor have the intention of doing such. To take your Virus
example. This is an incident, it requires a response. It
does not require a forensic analysis of the system, nor
would this be generally done. Organisations want "the
systems up" more than they want to catch the criminal.
California may prove interesting... But we will see.
Interesting concept, however not correct:
There was a large forensic investigation involved in these cases and many more you can easily find with Google.
Even analysis of the viruses themselves are done in a forensic manner.
I have dealt with cases of in-house malware being distributed by disgruntled employees, and had to conduct a forensic
investigation. This is a reason to have Incident Response as part of the orgs DRP/BCP, often entire systems must be
taken down to investigate.
By, "Many organizations have a policy of not going to
litigation." I means that some (and by some - a lot - I
have statistics if you wish - most at the 95% CI, some at
alpha = 10% levels) of organisations would rather bury the
issue. This is not all and is something that needs to be
decided in advance, but it is a business decision (we have
no disclosure laws for disclosure of these incidents).
Public admission is required to get an Anton pillar (civil
search) - many listed companies would never do this. Many
listed companies would rather remain in the dark (they
know what is happening - but stock options ...)
Wow, so if the CFO embezzles millions of dollars, at these companies with a no litigation policy, they just fire the
CFO and the CFO gets to keep the money?
By the way, how do these companies handle discovery requests from the court?
Do they reply with a letter that says "dear court, we are sorry to inform you we have a no litigation policy, therefore
we refuse to participate in your tribunal."
As for concedes - I have know several companies who would
not concede a case if they had the world only infallible
evidence from every other personal and company in the
world to oppose them.
Yes some will not concede, however if you have two councils and one is looking at the evidence and says "we are toast"
they usually advise the client to settle out of court, as to not cost them more.
You are again looking from a perspective that assumes that
separate skill may never be deployed by a single person.
This is not the case. Incident response as I have been
stated has a different set of goals to Forensics. As
stated, Forensics ALWAYS involves court (this is not only
a definition in a dictionary, but also in law. As stated
defined word etc. There ARE consequences for using the
term incorrectly - at least there can be). An affidavit
(or deposition is the US) is a function of the court
(involving court does not mean going into court - please
not the separation). Incident repose may or may not have
something to do with this process.
Forensic does not ALWAYS involve court. It is a best practice method, in case you end up in litigation.
You state "Investigations are the systematic and thorough
gathering, examining, and studying of factual information
that results in the factual explanation of what
transpired." I agree with this statement. It misses the
line however "for legal production" or "for use in court"
etc. This is the difference. As stated, forensic = court
(as simple as I may state). Investigation may OR MAY NOT
mean court (court being the legal process).
Here we go with a slight contradiction again, you state my "quote about Investigations" leaves off "for legal
production" or "for use in court", however in the next sentence you state ""Investigation may OR MAY NOT mean court
(court being the legal process)"" ????
You seem mostly to not understand that (in a common law
jurisdiction - which includes the US), experts (including
forensic experts) are agents of the court. You work for
the court - this does not mean you are paid (and I know it
is not a perfect world and this oft does not hold true).
The party who pays you is not who you represent. You are a
representative of justice (the court). Not the state, not
your employer. You present the facts, not the opinion (and
I know this does occur).
Since I not only do civil investigations, I also do criminal and even participated in military tribunals, I believe I
fully understand the concepts agents of the court. However, did I state something that made you feel I was not aware of
So yes, there are forensically conducted investigations
and there are investigations. Thus DFS and Investigation
are separate (though related).
But, if we treat them all as if they might end up in litigation and do them in a forensically sound manner, are our
clients, organizations etc, not better served?
Dave Kleiman, CAS,CCE,CIFI,CISM,CISSP,ISSAP,ISSMP,MCSE
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within
those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not use or disclose the information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us promptly by reply
email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may not rely on this message as advice
unless it has been electronically signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by
a Partner of BDO.
BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference,
interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
EARN A MASTER OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION ASSURANCE - ONLINE
The Norwich University program offers unparalleled Infosec management
education and the case study affords you unmatched consulting experience.
Tailor your education to your own professional goals with degree
customizations including Emergency Management, Business Continuity Planning,
Computer Emergency Response Teams, and Digital Investigations.
- Re: Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator, (continued)