Forensic Blogs

An aggregator for digital forensics blogs

December 13, 2018 by LCDI

Mobile App Forensics Final Update

Introduction

During this semester, the Mobile Forensics team analyzed social media apps such as Snapchat, Telegram, and LinkedIn. 

Snapchat

As for a conclusion on our Snapchat analysis, we couldn’t find much outside of prior research within the community. A big concern we had was how much data would remain on a device  twenty-four hours after it was generated. An immediate pull from the device yielded evidence of what stories the user viewed and also a log of messages exchanged with other users (but not the content of the message). This log showed who sent and received the message and the timestamp of the event. The text of messages was only viewable if either user had saved the message. Some pictures were also recovered that had the contents of stories that were viewed. This could provide some information on the interests of a user, but nothing incriminating. An interesting artifact found on the device that could not be decoded was location data found in  /data/data/com.snapchat.android/cache. We could not parse these files and believe they may related to ArcGIS.

We aquired Snapchat after a few days to see what information would still be available. Logs of conversations were not deleted and remained on the device. However, there were still no contents of the conversation again with the exception of any messages that either user saved. It appears Snapchat does not store data from the user directly on the phone, it may simply be processed and erased while in memory. There was little evidence of user activity.

Telegram

When testing Telegram we did two pulls of the tablets. We first did a pull with all three of the members and then a pull with just two members on the different operating systems. When we did the first pull, the data between the group was very easy to analyze, but the solo data was very confusing, so we did the second pull. When we tested Telegram, we were interested in the secret chats the most to see if we could find any information about them. Telegram advertises that the messages are encrypted and we were interested to see if we could verify this. The only chats that were encrypted were messages in a secret chat. This is definitely a note for a forensic investigator. When we did the pull, we could see each message in the chat log as well as any pictures and images. The one thing we could not find was any videos or voice messages that did not get saved.

LinkedIn

While analyzing LinkedIn, we once again didn’t find all the data we were looking for. We had hoped to be able to find the user’s whole work profile but that was not the case. We were able to pull and reconstruct all their chat messages, a summary of their profile, and users they connected with, but we couldn’t find any search history, viewed articles, or viewed jobs. Even when looking in the chat, we didn’t find images or voice messages in the same location as the other chats. We had some temporary files for images, but we weren’t able to confirm what the images were. They could have been images from the chat logs or they could have been images from an articles or profile.

Versions

Readers of previous blog posts may note that we were comparing differences in Android operating system versions. There has been little to no evidence found that the version of the OS has an impact on our examined applications. The only major change we found was occasionally an app on Android 6 would generate a few extra folders, but they were always empty. However, it is important to note the biggest changes would be found with differing application versions.

 

Different operating systems don’t affect the data we pulled because OS updates focus more on new features and security fixes rather than how app data is stored on the device. If we looked into different versions of the application then there would be differences in the pulls. The updates of the apps will have bug fixes as well as security fixes that make the app more secure. If we could test an older version of one of the apps to the most current update then we would find different data.

 

This is clear in the below screenshots:

Snapchat on Android 6

Snapchat on Android 7

As you can see the files may be slightly different. Any files that were not common between the two extractions were empty.

Conclusion

Our work this semester has been a good test of our examined applications to ensure that they work as advertised. One may believe that mainstream applications are secure because of their size and amount of users. Previous reports, which can be found here and here, have shown that Snapchat has been less secure in the past, and we have seen clear improvements in the amount of data that is stored on the device. With Telegram, the application works as it should and doesn’t store data on the phone to be viewed later on. However, this was only the case when using “secure messaging” and is not on by default. With LinkedIn there was little data we were able to recover from the phone. That by no means infers that LinkedIn is not storing your personal data. This simply means that that data is not stored on the device.

 

There has been a lot of hands on with tools such as ADB and Cellebrite to find efficient ways to examine these phones, and one should always question the applications they use every day with their private information. We are glad to have formed a plan of analysis for these apps, and look forward to seeing what research will be performed on the apps we use every day. As always, stay up to date with the LCDI on our social media.  Follow us on Twitter @ChampForensics, Instagram @ChampForensics, and Facebook @ChamplainLCDI.

The post Mobile App Forensics Final Update appeared first on The Leahy Center for Digital Investigation.

Read the original at: The Leahy Center for Digital InvestigationFiled Under: Digital Forensics, Uncategorized Tagged With: Analysis, Android Forensics, Application Analysis, Blog Post, Champlain College, Digital forensics, Digital Investigation, linkedin, Mobile, Mobile Apps, Projects, snapchat, Student Work, Students, Update

November 26, 2018 by LCDI

Mobile Forensics Update 2

Introduction

If you read our last blog post, you know that the Mobile Forensic team ran into some issues early on. We are happy to share that we have since overcome those issues, and we’ve hit the ground running with our project. We are no longer using the LG G6 devices mentioned last month due to issues rooting these devices. Instead we are using Nexus 7 tablets running Android 6 and 7.

Two apps we pulled and analyzed data from are Snapchat and Telegram. Before we set up accounts, we had to create different personas for each team member. The personas we came up with were Johan Smith, Tony Pepperoni, and Mallow Operator.

Snapchat

Before we started collecting our data, we had to figure out what actions we would go through so we all had data we could compare. Some of the actions to generate data for Snapchat included adding each other as friends, creating a group chat, and posing to a story. When generating data for analysis, we kept track of who sent chats to whom, what time we did each action, and if anything went wrong. After pulling the data with adb, we compared the timestamps and actions from the pull with our datagen log. We were successfully able to see what Snapchat saves and what we can find on the phone.

Telegram

When we were setting up Telegram, we had to setup Google Voice numbers in order to create our profiles. With Telegram we also had to figure out what actions we wanted to take so that each person could get similar pull results—hence the creation of another datagen. With Telegram our actions included adding contacts, joining different groups, and sending videos and stickers. We kept track of timestamps again and then compared the data and the pull. We decided to use both Cellebrite and adb to see if there was any benefit of one tool over the other. At the moment, we’re still analyzing Telegram to see if there is anything noteworthy so stay tuned!

Conclusion

With these pulls we were able to see what data Snapchat and Telegram save on your phone. We were looking to see if any unusual data was saved by the applications. So far nothing has stood out with either Snapchat or Telegram. The next app we will be doing a datagen and pulling is LinkedIn.

Stay tuned for more updates to come and follow us on Twitter @ChampForensics, Instagram @ChampForensics, and Facebook @ChamplainLCDI.

The post Mobile Forensics Update 2 appeared first on The Leahy Center for Digital Investigation.

Read the original at: The Leahy Center for Digital InvestigationFiled Under: Digital Forensics, Uncategorized Tagged With: Analysis, application, Blog Post, Champlain College, computer forensics, Digital forensics, forensics, Mobile, Mobile Apps, mobile forensics, snapchat, Student Work, telegram, Update

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)