基于元数据的删除文件恢复(DFR)工具是否符合NIST指南?

Andrew Meyer, Sankardas Roy
{"title":"基于元数据的删除文件恢复(DFR)工具是否符合NIST指南?","authors":"Andrew Meyer, Sankardas Roy","doi":"10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.163091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Digital forensics (DF) tools are used for post-mortem investigation of cyber-crimes. CFTT (Computer Forensics Tool Testing) Program at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has defined expectations for a DF tool’s behavior. Understanding these expectations and how DF tools work is critical for ensuring integrity of the forensic analysis results. In this paper, we consider standardization of one class of DF tools which are for Deleted File Recovery (DFR). We design a list of canonical test file system images to evaluate a DFR tool. Via extensive experiments we find that many popular DFR tools do not satisfy some of the standards, and we compile a comparative analysis of these tools, which could help the user choose the right tool. Furthermore, one of our research questions identifies the factors which make a DFR tool fail. Moreover, we also provide critique on applicability of the standards. Our findings is likely to trigger more research on compliance of standards from the researcher community as well as the practitioners.","PeriodicalId":335727,"journal":{"name":"EAI Endorsed Trans. Security Safety","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Metadata-based Deleted-File-Recovery (DFR) Tools Meet NIST Guidelines?\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Meyer, Sankardas Roy\",\"doi\":\"10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.163091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Digital forensics (DF) tools are used for post-mortem investigation of cyber-crimes. CFTT (Computer Forensics Tool Testing) Program at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has defined expectations for a DF tool’s behavior. Understanding these expectations and how DF tools work is critical for ensuring integrity of the forensic analysis results. In this paper, we consider standardization of one class of DF tools which are for Deleted File Recovery (DFR). We design a list of canonical test file system images to evaluate a DFR tool. Via extensive experiments we find that many popular DFR tools do not satisfy some of the standards, and we compile a comparative analysis of these tools, which could help the user choose the right tool. Furthermore, one of our research questions identifies the factors which make a DFR tool fail. Moreover, we also provide critique on applicability of the standards. Our findings is likely to trigger more research on compliance of standards from the researcher community as well as the practitioners.\",\"PeriodicalId\":335727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EAI Endorsed Trans. Security Safety\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EAI Endorsed Trans. Security Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.163091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EAI Endorsed Trans. Security Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.163091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数字取证(DF)工具用于网络犯罪的事后调查。美国国家标准与技术研究院(NIST)的CFTT(计算机取证工具测试)项目已经定义了对DF工具行为的期望。了解这些期望以及DF工具如何工作对于确保取证分析结果的完整性至关重要。本文考虑了一类用于删除文件恢复(DFR)的DF工具的标准化问题。我们设计了一个标准测试文件系统映像列表来评估DFR工具。通过大量的实验,我们发现许多流行的DFR工具不满足某些标准,我们对这些工具进行了比较分析,可以帮助用户选择合适的工具。此外,我们的研究问题之一确定了使DFR工具失败的因素。此外,我们还对标准的适用性提出了批评。我们的发现可能会引发更多的研究人员社区以及从业者对标准的遵从性的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do Metadata-based Deleted-File-Recovery (DFR) Tools Meet NIST Guidelines?
Digital forensics (DF) tools are used for post-mortem investigation of cyber-crimes. CFTT (Computer Forensics Tool Testing) Program at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has defined expectations for a DF tool’s behavior. Understanding these expectations and how DF tools work is critical for ensuring integrity of the forensic analysis results. In this paper, we consider standardization of one class of DF tools which are for Deleted File Recovery (DFR). We design a list of canonical test file system images to evaluate a DFR tool. Via extensive experiments we find that many popular DFR tools do not satisfy some of the standards, and we compile a comparative analysis of these tools, which could help the user choose the right tool. Furthermore, one of our research questions identifies the factors which make a DFR tool fail. Moreover, we also provide critique on applicability of the standards. Our findings is likely to trigger more research on compliance of standards from the researcher community as well as the practitioners.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Systemic Security and Privacy Review: Attacks and Prevention Mechanisms over IOT Layers Mitigating Vulnerabilities in Closed Source Software Comparing Online Surveys for Cybersecurity: SONA and MTurk Dynamic Risk Assessment and Analysis Framework for Large-Scale Cyber-Physical Systems How data-sharing nudges influence people's privacy preferences: A machine learning-based analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1