Forensic Blogs

An aggregator for digital forensics blogs

April 30, 2020 by LCDI

Researching IoT Devices

Art depicting the connectivity of common devices Introduction

It is safe to say that everyone is constantly connected, through our smartphones, social media accounts, and even smart homes. Every day, more and more innovative devices are released to the public. Any device that is able to have a relationship with another is part of Internet of Things (IoT). Forbes goes so far as to state that “the relationship will be between people-people, people-things, and things-things”. While these devices offer easy-to-use functionality and instant access to information, how secure are they? In this blog, students at the Leahy Center will review some common devices and discuss some of their vulnerabilities.

IoT Smart Locks

Smart locks are great for remote access to your home’s doors. They’re a faster way to open them, as well as allow a user to keep a record of each action. However, Katie Hopkins, part of the IoT research team, is in the midst of a deep dive into smart lock vulnerabilities—discovering how to make a device that is supposed to keep your home secure vulnerable to hackers. Her research was specifically on Kwikset Kevo Smart Lock devices. Despite how secure one may think these devices are, Katie found that these vulnerabilities may subvert that expectation.

Image of a smart lock

Some vulnerabilities are very simple, such as a denial of service attack using a smartphone. The InfoSec Handbook, a guide to network security concepts, offers a useful definition. A denial of service attack is one that limits or rejects access due to an overflow of data from an outside device. In this case, an attacker can use the Kevo app to send large amounts of open/close requests to the lock. This confuses the device and causes it to not react to a physical key that comes with the device. Another vulnerability is that the lock’s batteries only last about two weeks. This leaves a window of opportunity for an attacker to gain control of the lock.

Some companies also claim that they encrypt passwords for these devices but end up not doing so; great information for a hacker, bad news for you! There are many more ways to exploit these devices, but these are just a few of the simpler ones. NewSky Security wrote a blog post that breaks down more exploits in detail.

Overall, these locks may be useful for securing your home, but their functionality causes new problems.

Google Home

One of the landmark accomplishments in smart devices has to be the creation of personal assistants. One of the more sophisticated virtual helpers is Google Assistant, a competitor to Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa personal assistants. This software can exist on most devices with a microphone and a speaker since Google Assistant interacts through voice. The user may give the device commands such as, “set an alarm”, or “open my garage door”.

Google Assistant can also interact with your other smart devices in a smart home. To do this, one can purchase a Google Home. Home runs the Google Assistant software and serves as a hub for all your smart devices. 

Image of a Google Home

IoT team member, Joe McCormack, has been doing research on the Google Home and did not find as many vulnerabilities with the software or hardware as Katie found in her research of the smart locks. But, just like the Kevo Smart Locks, there is always a flaw. Discovered by a group at the University of Michigan, the process which utilizes the microphone and translates it so the Google Assistant can execute those commands can be exploited. By using a low-powered laser, an attacker can shine different frequencies into the Google Home’s microphone and execute commands without a sound. This means a criminal can use this to do things like disarm smart home security systems and open smart locks without a sound. The technology required to do this is fairly complex but can be done by anyone with the proper knowledge.

D-Link WiFi Camera

The best way to catch a criminal is to actually see them in the act of a crime. It is also common for parents to keep an eye on their children while they are working or are left with a babysitter. Security cameras are a great way to automatically record the happenings of an area. Most come with motion detection, night vision, and the ability to record entire days worth of footage. One camera that the IoT Security team has been researching is from D-Link, a reputable manufacturer that specializes in network devices, including security cameras. The D-Link WiFi Camera model (DCS-5030L) is a cheap and effective way to monitor your home or office, but if the user does not update the camera regularly, there can be trouble.

Image of a D-Link wifi camera

Someone who is familiar with code can find specific files online that allow unauthorized access to the camera. That means that a person can gain control of the camera, look at recordings saved in the memory, and even move the position of the camera. However, it is actually pretty easy to prevent an attack. All you have to do is keep your firmware updated as D-Link has fixed many security issues over the lifespan of the device. This is normally the case for many devices.

Conclusion

There are vulnerabilities to most, if not all, of the IoT devices that you might use in your home. A capable hacker can exploit devices that you use every day; from your smart door lock to your smart refrigerator. We must be more aware of the issues that are present with new and exciting technology or our personal data could be compromised. It is always good to keep the device’s firmware up to date and have strong network security. By fortifying your devices and the network it resides on, you can prevent the possibility of an attacker taking control of your smart home, smart camera, or any other smart device. For the sake of your personal information, physical security, as well as privacy, remember that the convenience that smart devices offer might not be worth the risk.

The post Researching IoT Devices appeared first on The Leahy Center for Digital Forensics & Cybersecurity.

Read the original at: The Leahy Center for Digital Forensics & CybersecurityFiled Under: Digital Forensics, Uncategorized Tagged With: Application Analysis, Bluetooth Security, Digital forensics, DoS, Exploration Forensics, Internet of Things, IoT, Mobile App Analysis, mobile applications, security, Student Work, Tips

April 30, 2020 by LCDI

Data Recovery Blog 2

Data on a screen, various numbers highlighted green, with a red open lock Data Is Not As “Deleted” As You Think

Here at The Leahy Center for Digital Forensics and Cybersecurity, the Data Recovery team has been hard at work searching through hard drives. These drives have been wiped using different methods in order to find any Personally Identifiable Information, or PII, that can be tied back to an individual.

At this point, ten out of the twenty eight drives purchased have been fully analyzed for the purposes of recovering data. Three drives, numbered 7, 9, and 10, all contained PII data. Drive 7 used the wiping method of DBAN, which stands for Darik’s Boot and Nuke, and is a free Linux utility. Drives 9 and 10 use the Xerase method, put forth by EPS. Both of these utilities claim to offer “secure absolute destruction”, yet how secure can they be if a team of analysts is able to recover data using tools that are freely available to the public?

The Recovery Process

For this project, we are using four “freeware” tools to recover data. These tools are SluethKit’s Autopsy, FTK Imager, Bulk Extractor, and Eric Zimmerman’s “bstrings” utility for Windows. Every drive that was purchased was run through all of these tools, not only to ensure visibility of data, but to determine if one tool has superior discovery abilities for deleted data. The tools are relatively simple to begin using, but require a bit of technical knowledge to become comfortable with. We have built a beginner-friendly user guide for how to start all four tools for acquisitions of data, which can be seen below.

Autopsy: Open Autopsy.  Fill out the stating form as needed.  Select “Add Data Source” –> “Unallocated Space Image File”.  Select the first piece of the drive. 

Wait for the image to finish scanning. This will take a while.

Bstrings: Open the command line in the folder in which you extracted bstrings. Type out the command to run it on a folder recursively to search an entire drive at once. Example:  bstrings.exe -d Disk Location > File Where Data Found Is Saved\bstrings.txt Adjust the conventions to match the image that you are working on. Bulk Extractor:  Point Bulk Extractor to the desired image Ex: HDD02.001, and a directory where you would like the output to go. Turn on all scanners by checking all of their boxes Press the ‘start bulk_extractor’ button to being the scan FTK Imager: Upload disk image from the F:\Drive into FTK Imager v3.4.0.5.  On the left hand side, click on the location i.e HD1, then select the file path (it will be the only option in the evidence tree).  Upon clicking, there will be a file list in the middle column, and a column full of text and UNICODE on the far right. This is where all of the data is.  Since there is no file system, the program pulls data haphazardly.  In FTK Imager, you can use “Ctrl + F” to search from strings, but be wary of what language you are searching in.  Select the “wrap” option as well, to ensure that if a string crosses more than one line, it will be recorded in the results. Analyze Which Data Recovery Tools Reign Supreme?

At the current point in the project, Autopsy is proving to be the most effective tool for data recovery. Autopsy has a very user friendly interface. This provides ease of access and lower frustrations when dealing with drives that have been wiped. Also, Autopsy is very thorough in the way that it searches, parsing through nearly every single file, and every bit of unallocated space. FTK Imager is a very good tool as well, yet does not have a very easy interface to work with. This is not what would be known as a “deal breaker”, but plays into our analysis as we spend a lot of time analyzing these drives, so ease of access is a crucial part. Bulk Extractor is a utility that runs off of command line, but has a GUI—or Graphical User Interface—to facilitate the process for those who are not comfortable with command line utilities. This tool runs the drive analysis as raw data, and finds everything that is on the drive, which is very helpful for data recovery. 

The last tool we have used is bstrings by Eric Zimmerman. Bstrings is a command line utility that only runs as such, making it a bit more difficult than the other tools to be comfortable with. It is ridiculously thorough, as it pulls anything and everything off of the drive that’s considered a string. However, due to CPU constraints, this tool does take the longest to fully finish, often over 24 hours. 

Image of a trophy with a 1 on it

Stay up to date with Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook by following @ChampForensics so you always know what we’re up to!

The post Data Recovery Blog 2 appeared first on The Leahy Center for Digital Forensics & Cybersecurity.

Read the original at: The Leahy Center for Digital Forensics & CybersecurityFiled Under: Digital Forensics, Uncategorized Tagged With: Data Recovery, Digital forensics, Exploration Forensics, Internship, Projects, Student Work, Students, Update

April 30, 2020 by LCDI

Application Analysis Blog 2

Application Analysis Continued

On the Application Analysis team, we have been busy recovering data from deleted programs. Please refer to this link for our previous blog post and more information about what we do!

Google Drive

Since our last update, the team has been busy digging through Google Drive. While we found a lot of information, we also learned about some unknown features of the application. When a user starts the installation for Google Drive, the application creates a new folder. Also added is a syncing program to download and upload the files locally. This is important to be aware of because once one deletes a program, this local folder and all the files within are still available.  This is a good feature for user interface, even if it is at the cost of security. If the user has files on their drive and still need them offline, it provides easy access. The problem arises if the user wanted all traces of their google drive gone from their computer in a single deletion.  

In our experiment, we created test profiles and tested all of the capabilities of the application. Then, we investigated what information we could access after deleting the application from the computer.  The separate folder had all of the information that was linked and downloaded to Google Drive and its local folder. The problem with drive storage versus cloud storage is that anything that you have downloaded lacks the need for a user login and password.  In addition, the folder created during installation is shown under “Quick Access” even after deletion, making it easily visible to unwanted users.  

Introducing Axiom

When the team started investigating the evidence in Magnet Axiom (a commercial digital forensics investigation tool), the beneficial applications of this method became apparent. The deletion of the application doesn’t retain the Google user’s information (password, email, name, etc), but the URL to the Google document is.

Picture of analysis tool results for Google Drive

The link to the Google Drive is to the right under Evidence Information

All of the files that were stored under the “Google Drive” folder locally were accessible from Axiom. In addition, all files contained a link back to the drive that can be opened in browser.  When you go to open the file online links from Axiom to the Google Drive, unless you possess the login information, the rest of the information is safe.  In a way this ensures future data security, as any future iterations of files are not accessible after the deletion of the app unless the user is accessing it.  It is a bit of both worlds for accessibility and security, as expected from such a large and well-developed company.

Dropbox

The team has also spent time sifting through Dropbox data from a similarly structured experiment. After we loaded the virtual machine file into Axiom, we saw that the system stores all Dropbox-based files, even after deleting the program from the computer. 

Screenshot showing the dropbox files visible in Axiom

Screenshot showing the dropbox files visible in Axiom

Axiom processes a variety of information: when the user logged into the program, when they downloaded the default Dropbox files, the files/folders Dropbox stores and creates, when they were created, and the direct file paths of the files. 

Screenshot showing specific information about one of the Dropbox files

Screenshot showing specific information about one of the Dropbox files

The system Google implemented is still very much present in Dropbox.  The program created a folder in the file system locally that remained after the deletion of the application.  However, the information in the image above does not include a link back to Dropbox. If there was not a folder for the information, there would be very little distinguishing information within the files showing that Dropbox downloaded them. Dropbox however unlike Google, does not have its own format(Google Documents, Google Presentation, etc) or online application for documents and files, a factor which likely influenced this approach.

Conclusion

Considering the type of user interaction these services provide, this outcome is surprising, but not entirely difficult to understand. It is important information to anyone who may be trying to compromise your data. In order to rid your system of all the above information, the user will need to do it manually. It is clear to see that one can’t delete all of the information by uninstalling the desktop version of the program. 

In the coming weeks we will be investigating Steam. As the largest video game platform worldwide, it would need to keep its users’ data safe.  

We will be sure to let everyone know the verdict on our next Application Analysis blog!

Stay up to date with Twitter @ChampForensics, Instagram @ChampForensics, and Facebook @ChamplainLCDI so you always know what we’re up to!

 

The post Application Analysis Blog 2 appeared first on The Leahy Center for Digital Forensics & Cybersecurity.

Read the original at: The Leahy Center for Digital Forensics & CybersecurityFiled Under: Digital Forensics, Uncategorized Tagged With: application, Application Analysis, Data Recovery, Exploration Forensics, Internship, Magnet, Magnet Forensics, Projects, Senator Leahy Center for Digital Investigation, Student Work, Students, Update

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

About

This site aggregates posts from various digital forensics blogs. Feel free to take a look around, and make sure to visit the original sites.

  • Contact
  • Aggregated Sites

Suggest a Site

Know of a site we should add? Enter it below

Sending

Jump to Category

All content is copyright the respective author(s)