Examination of Firearms Review: 2007 to 2010 - Interpol

2.3 Security and Encryption
Bluetooth enabled devices have become widely available and readily
accessible to consumers in the form of mobile phones, laptop computers
and GPS navigation systems. Browning has described Bluetooth
technology to be vulnerable to hacking measures (9). In the case of
mobile phones, Bluetooth technology may provide an opportunity for
someone to listen to phone conversations or read text messages without
the authorized user’s knowledge. Moreover, calls or texts may be made
without authorization (10).
Wireless access points have also emerged rapidly to provide consumers
with widely accessible, immediate ad in many cases free and unrestricted
access to the internet. Inherent in this technology is the vulnerability of the
network provider and consumer to criminal liability or violation. Network
users may be exposed to security vulnerabilities and unwittingly place
personal information at risk of discovery or manipulation. The network
provider may be exposed by providing a network to be abused for criminal
purposes. Herein lies a further challenge to the digital forensic
investigator. Takahashia reports that network protocol analyzers, typically
developed for network performance analyses, may provide an investigative
tool to investigate such network criminality (11). Takahashia reports that
some characteristics in IEEE 802. (11) Traffic particularly help identify
network users. Like actual human fingerprints, there are also unique traffic
characteristics for each network user. They are called network user
fingerprints, by tracking which more than half of network users can be
connected to their traffic even with medium access control (MAC) layer
pseudonyms. The concept of network user fingerprints is likely to be a
powerful tool for intrusion detection and digital forensics in the future (12.)
Growth in the use of and sophistication of digital encryption will require law
enforcement agencies to develop critical investigative skills. Dr Glen
Dardick, Longwood University states that current level of sophistication and
potential for spoliation and tampering with evidence going undiscovered is
a cause for concern (13). Applications and systems are increasingly
becoming more sensitive to the privacy needs of individuals. These
systems may not necessarily be deleting evidence. They may not be
creating evidence in the first place. Applications with the specific purpose
of deleting evidence (e.g. Evidence Eliminator, Timestomp) have now
become off the shelf software. Dardick argues that if the digital forensic
expert is a finder of fact, then that expert may be finding those facts more
difficult to discover. The role of the digital forensics expert is now much
more than a finder of fact. The expert needs to develop further critical
investigative skill relevant to counter anti forensics. It maybe necessary to
locate evidence of spoliation rather than the evidence itself. A clever
analogy presented was one involving the needle in a haystack. In a digital
world it maybe that a copy of a haystack is used to cover the needle (e.g.
overwriting). It is the haystack and not the needle that becomes crucial
evidence.
401