Computer Forensics vs. Network Forensics
Posted by: Ben Uphoff in Network Forensics, tags: Computer forensics, incident response, Network ForensicsThe security industry today is making big money on forensics. SANS alone has three different courses on the subject. Guidance Software has built a highly successful company by focusing solely on computer forensics. This is great but anyone that has ever done a computer forensic investigation knows that it is a time consuming, tedious process that is prone to human error. They also know that computer forensics is often not the end of an investigation but the beginning of a larger incident.
Often a computer forensic investigation will yield evidence showing that the compromised host was not an isolated compromise but part of something larger and nastier. This is where computer forensics meets network forensics. Surprisingly, the security industry is lagging far behind when it comes to network forensics. The focus has been on computer forensics but a shift towards network forensics in the industry is inevitable.
Once there is a determination that an incident has spanned more than one host on the network, a network forensic investigation begins to determine the scope of the incident. The key difference between computer forensics and network forensics is that the network must stay up during the investigation. Anyone familiar with computer forensics knows that your first step is to isolate the computer (unplug the network cable, block it at the switch, etc). This is approach doesn’t really work with a network. Unplugging the network from the Internet is one option, although certainly not good for business.
The reality of the situation is that networks cannot be isolated in the same way computers can in a forensic investigation - the costs are just too high. Network forensics must be performed on live networks. Incident response tools, packet captures, intrusion detection systems and NetFlow logs (and other network event logs) become key data sources under these circumstances. The process of performing network forensics on a live network is much too lengthy of a discussion for this post. We will revisit the topic down the road on future BreachBytes posts.
Entries (RSS)
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm - Edit
I think that the methodologies in both cases are ones that need much ironing out. Having spent some time on both.. human error is what takes up the most time in trying to get around. Did you miss a netflow that was important? Was the netflow you just spent 8 hours analyzing a false lead? Where did the bad-guys mislead you? In too many cases, each investigation seems to be a completely new thing where tons of stuff gets invented again.
Having ways to centralize and replicate actions are always a win with network forensics… and too many tools are not able to do that.