Cloud and Edge Computing-Based Computer Forensics: Challenges and Open Problems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
1.2. Our Contribution
- All the hardware and software tools available for the digital forensic process in Cloud and Edge computing;
- Effect of encryption methods on Cloud/Edge forensic analysis;
- Basic details of forensic methods for handling tampered sound files, hidden files, image files, or images with steganography (e.g., to protect copyrights).
2. Literature Review
2.1. Survey/Identification Stage
2.1.1. Log-Based Approach Model
2.1.2. Access of Evidence in Logs Using a Prepared API
2.1.3. Using Eucalyptus Software-Syslog or Snort Logs
2.1.4. The Persistent Storage Device for the Client’s Data
2.1.5. An Integrated Conceptual Digital Forensic Framework
2.2. Collection and Preservation Stages
2.2.1. The Trust Model and Trust Cloud
2.2.2. Isolation Techniques
2.2.3. Secure Provenance Schemes
2.2.4. The Trust Platform Module (TPM)
2.2.5. VM Snapshots
2.3. Examination and Analysis Stages
2.3.1. The Offline Windows Analysis and Data Extraction (OWADE) Tool
2.3.2. The Management Plane
2.3.3. The Forensic Open-Stack Tools (FROST)
2.4. Reconstruction Stage
LVM2-Based System Snapshots
2.5. Presentation/Reporting Stage
2.5.1. Seminars and Associate Conferences
2.5.2. Repeatable and Reproducible Conclusions
3. Edge Forensics: Challenges with Cloud Forensics and Existing Solutions
4. Forensic Analysis: Tools, Encryption and Files Handling Methods
4.1. Computer Forensic Software Tools
4.2. Hardware Tools for Forensic Analysis in Cloud and Edge Computing
4.2.1. Data Recovery Stick
4.2.2. Phone Recovery and iRecovery Stick
4.2.3. Project-A-Phone Flex
4.2.4. Chatstick
4.2.5. Forensic Ultradox Right Blocker V5.5
4.2.6. Dp2c
4.2.7. Mobile Field Kit
4.2.8. Strong Holdbags and Tabletop
4.2.9. Forensic Duplicator
4.3. Effects of Encryption Methods on Cloud Forensic Analysis
4.4. Forensic Methods for Handling Tampered Sound Files
4.5. Forensic Methods for Handling Image Files
- Detecting traces of resampling;
- Splicing detection based on inconsistencies in geometry perspective;
- Analysis of noise inconsistencies;
- Splicing detection based on lighting/shadows;
- Enhancement detection;
- Cyclostationary analysis;
- Seam carving detection.
4.6. Forensic Methods for Handling Image Files with Steganography
- Spatial Domain Steganographic Systems [101];
- Statistical Procedures [102];
- Image Frequency Domain Steganographic Scheme [103];
- Distortion Methods [104];
- Dossier Embedding Method;
- Palette Embedding;
- Image Generation Method;
- Image Element Adjustment Methods;
- Adaptive Steganography;
- Spread Spectrum Image Steganography (SSIS) Technique.
- Military personnel use steganography as a general means of communication for confidential communication;
- National Security Agencies (NSAs) use steganography to transmit confidential messages inside and outside the agency;
- Hiding the details of the people in their photo in the smart ID;
- Since unreliable communication may often lead to serious data loss, corporate and industry communication is monitored for protection and authenticity;
- Watermarking is used for copyright information notation;
- Advanced data structure;
- Document tracking tools;
- Electronic money;
- Radar system and remote sensing;
- Multimodal biometric data, etc.;
- Medical science uses image steganography in medical images used for diagnoses such as CT and MRI.
- U.S. officials and several articles claim that al-Qaeda used steganography to plan the “9/11 attacks” [109]. Later in 2012, an al-Qaeda member was arrested in Berlin with a chip that contains video files containing steganography.
- “Operation Twins” is an international paedophile racket known as the “Shadow Brotherhood” [110].
- The University of Purdue reported that several computers had been found with information relating to financial fraud and a device that hides data with child pornography [111].
- The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) states that 10 Russian goosebumps in the United States are using stenography and that confidential data have been leaked to Moscow from the United States [112].
5. Open Problems
- “Reliance on CSPs” to obtain information as evidence in the Cloud [51];
- Critical time issues and data analysis from multiple sources and compilation of evidence from various distribution agencies [51];
- Reconstruction of crime in the cloud [51];
- “Overcoming border crossings” as a result of the spread of cloud computing [51];
- “Lack of system control” means that evidence cannot be held for preservation [51];
- “Jury’s technical understanding” limits the judges’ jurisdiction and in addition the court’s understanding of the Cloud technology and complexity and hence the changing face of the evidence [51];
- Cybercrime is carried out without regard to time or place. Information services or customer data may be disseminated across many sites or even continents. As a result, it creates procedural ambiguity and controversy in the government’s information security oversight and lengthens the forensic time and complicates the process. Furthermore, judicial questions relating to users’ physical limits are hazy due to virtualized technology, and they must not be overlooked [40];
- Crime modes can cover various realms, from electronic communities, pornography websites, phishing, copyright piracy, and e-commerce bills, depending on the Cloud network. When sensitive information is destroyed or disrupted legally or by some other medium, privacy problems arise [40];
- Electronic data include network evidence. The majority of documentation, such as Cloud storage log sheets, email logs of e-commerce bills, or digital signatures. When evaluated and tested by specific authentication, these various types of proof cannot mean anything by themselves. Since electronic evidence is easily tampered with, it is critical to prevent the different factors that compromise the legal impact of the three types of forensic evidence mentioned above [41];
- How to keep logs as security and synchronized and effectiveness as evidence [42];
- Improper activities at the network, client and server-end [43];
- Distributed Denial of Services (DDoS) and Malware Attacks [43];
- Dependencies due to service providers [43];
- In the public Cloud deployment model, consumers do not have physical access to the infrastructure, and their data privacy is much lower than those in the private cloud [54];
- Client computers in Cloud environments can provide minimal evidence due to the storage of real data on the CSP side [54];
- Timestamp matching of different file system activities during the investigation can be complex as clients and Cloud storage servers may reside in different time zones [54].
6. Nature and Scope of Challenges: Technical and Legal
6.1. Technical Challenges
6.1.1. The Distributive Nature and Volume of Data in the Cloud/Edge Computing
6.1.2. Cloud Computing Operational Characteristics
6.1.3. Nature of Cloud- and Edge-Based Evidence
6.1.4. Identifying Cloud Suspects
6.1.5. Encryption and Other Security Issues
6.1.6. Cloud Service Models—Challenges
6.2. Legal Challenges
6.2.1. Jurisdictional Issues
6.2.2. Lack of International Collaboration
6.2.3. The Requirement for Seizing Evidence (Admissibility of the Evidence)
6.2.4. Paid Service That Requires Protecting Customer Privacy
7. Conclusions and Future Scope
- Identification of social/cultural barriers to achieve a new framework/model and assess the implications for its conduct and implementation;
- Development of new Cloud/Edge forensics tools based on a new understanding of the concept of challenges and different hardware and software tools discussed in this study;
- Establishment of a standard and internationally recognized toolbar with reliability and guaranteed performance by focusing on reducing or preventing opportunities for investigators who produce results and evidence that provides a plan without finding the truth;
- Creation of a conducive environment for building trust between SPs and clients, especially about what is being recorded for future use (i.e., ongoing maintenance) as investigations arise;
- Assessing the feasibility of the “Location Register” from an ISP or data network providers.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mell, P.; Grance, T. The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing. 2011. Available online: http://faculty.winthrop.edu/domanm/csci411/Handouts/NIST.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Bhardwaj, A.K.; Garg, L.; Garg, A.; Gajpal, Y. E-Learning during COVID-19 Outbreak: Cloud Computing Adoption in Indian Public Universities. Comput. Mater. Cont. 2021, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Njenga, K.; Garg, L.; Bhardwaj, A.K.; Prakash, V.; Bawa, S. The cloud computing adoption in higher learning institutions in Kenya: Hindering factors and recommendations for the way forward. Telemat. Inform. 2019, 38, 225–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anwar, U.; Umair, H.A.; Sikander, A.; Abedin, Z.U. Government cloud adoption and architecture. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET), Sukkur, Pakistan, 30–31 January 2019; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Damshenas, M.; Dehghantanha, A.; Mahmoud, R.; bin Shamsuddin, S. Forensics investigation challenges in cloud computing environments. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Cyber Security, Cyber Warfare and Digital Forensic (CyberSec), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 26–28 June 2012; pp. 190–194. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, P.K.; Kaushik, P.S.; Agarwal, P.; Jain, P.; Agarwal, S.; Dixit, K. Issues and challenges of data security in a cloud computing environment. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 8th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON), New York, NY, USA, 19–21 October 2017; pp. 560–566. [Google Scholar]
- Fortino, G.; Russo, W.; Savaglio, C.; Viroli, M.; Zhou, M. Opportunistic cyberphysical services: A novel paradigm for the future Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 4th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Singapore, 5–8 February 2018; pp. 488–492. [Google Scholar]
- Cole, T.; Bhardwaj, A.K.; Garg, L.; Shrivastava, D.P. Investigation into Cloud Computing Adoption within the Hedge Fund Industry. J. Cases Inf. Technol. (JCIT) 2019, 21, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, W.Z.; Ahmed, E.; Hakak, S.; Yaqoob, I.; Ahmed, A. Edge computing: A survey. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 97, 219–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satyanarayanan, M. The emergence of edge computing. Computer 2017, 50, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, Y.; Peng, M.; Zhang, K. Edge computing technologies for Internet of Things: A primer. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2018, 4, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Yan, Z.; Ding, W.; Atiquzzaman, M. A survey on secure data analytics in edge computing. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 4946–4967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fortino, G.; Messina, F.; Rosaci, D.; Sarné, G.M.; Savaglio, C. A trust-based team formation framework for mobile intelligence in smart factories. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2020, 16, 6133–6142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aloi, G.; Fortino, G.; Gravina, R.; Pace, P.; Savaglio, C. Simulation-driven platform for Edge-based AAL systems. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2020, 39, 446–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biggs, S.; Vidalis, S. Cloud computing: The impact on digital forensic investigations. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST), London, UK, 9–12 November 2009; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Daryabar, F.; Dehghantanha, A.; Udzir, N.I.; bin Shamsuddin, S.; Norouzizadeh, F. A survey about impacts of cloud computing on digital forensics. Int. J.-Cyber-Secur. Digit. Forensics 2013, 2, 77–95. [Google Scholar]
- Ab Rahman, N.H.; Glisson, W.B.; Yang, Y.; Choo, K.K.R. Forensic-by-design framework for cyber-physical cloud systems. IEEE Cloud Comput. 2016, 3, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rani, D.R.; Geethakumari, G. An efficient approach to forensic investigation in cloud using VM snapshots. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Pervasive Computing (ICPC), Pune, India, 8–10 January 2015; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Husain, M.S.; Khan, M.Z. Critical Concepts, Standards, and Techniques in Cyber Forensics; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Martini, B.; Choo, K.K.R. An integrated conceptual digital forensic framework for cloud computing. Digit. Investig. 2012, 9, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martini, B.; Choo, K.K.R. Cloud forensic technical challenges and solutions: A snapshot. IEEE Cloud Comput. 2014, 1, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anwar, F.; Anwar, Z. Digital forensics for eucalyptus. In Proceedings of the 2011 Frontiers of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan, 19–21 December 2011; pp. 110–116. [Google Scholar]
- AlMendah, O.M.; Alzahrani, S.M. Cloud and Edge Computing Security Challenges, Demands, Known Threats, and Vulnerabilities. Acad. J. Res. Sci. Pub. 2021, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Manral, B.; Somani, G.; Choo, K.K.R.; Conti, M.; Gaur, M.S. A systematic survey on cloud forensics challenges, solutions, and future directions. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2019, 52, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yassin, W.; Abdollah, M.F.; Ahmad, R.; Yunos, Z.; Ariffin, A. Cloud Forensic Challenges and Recommendations: A Review. OIC-CERT J. Cyber Secur. 2020, 2, 19–29. [Google Scholar]
- Park, J.; Huh, E.N. eCLASS: Edge-cloud-log assuring-secrecy scheme for digital forensics. Symmetry 2019, 11, 1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, Y.; Jia, Y.; Liu, C.; Cheng, X.; Yu, J.; Lv, W. Edge computing security: State of the art and challenges. Proc. IEEE 2019, 107, 1608–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Takabi, H.; Le-Khac, N.A. Security, Privacy, and Digital Forensics in the Cloud; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandes, R.; Colaco, R.M.; Shetty, S.; Moorthy, R. A New Era of Digital Forensics in the form of Cloud Forensics: A Review. In Proceedings of the 2020 Second International Conference on Inventive Research in Computing Applications (ICIRCA), Coimbatore, India, 15–17 July 2020; pp. 422–427. [Google Scholar]
- Yaqoob, I.; Hashem, I.A.T.; Ahmed, A.; Kazmi, S.A.; Hong, C.S. Internet of things forensics: Recent advances, taxonomy, requirements, and open challenges. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 92, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amato, F.; Cozzolino, G.; Moscato, V.; Moscato, F. Analyse digital forensic evidences through a semantic-based methodology and NLP techniques. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 98, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerr, O.S. Digital evidence and the new criminal procedure. Colum. L. Rev. 2005, 105, 279. [Google Scholar]
- Hariri, R.H.; Fredericks, E.M.; Bowers, K.M. Uncertainty in big data analytics: Survey, opportunities, and challenges. J. Big Data 2019, 6, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jan, B.; Farman, H.; Khan, M.; Imran, M.; Islam, I.U.; Ahmad, A.; Ali, S.; Jeon, G. Deep learning in big data analytics: A comparative study. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2019, 75, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casey, E. Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Baryamureeba, V.; Tushabe, F. The enhanced digital investigation process model. In Proceedings of the Digital Forensic Research Conference (DFRWS 2004), Baltimore, MD, USA, 11–13 August 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, H.; Jin, B.; Shang, T. Forensic investigations in cloud environments. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Computer Science and Information Processing (CSIP), Xi’an, China, 24–26 August 2012; pp. 248–251. [Google Scholar]
- Reilly, D.; Wren, C.; Berry, T. Cloud computing: Forensic challenges for law enforcement. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, London, UK, 8–11 November 2010; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Reilly, D.; Wren, C.; Berry, T. Cloud computing: Pros and cons for computer forensic investigations. Int. J. Multimed. Image Process. (IJMIP) 2011, 1, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, C. Cybercrime forensic system in cloud computing. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on IEEE Image Analysis and Signal Processing (IASP), Wuhan, China, 21–23 October 2011; pp. 612–615. [Google Scholar]
- Marty, R. Cloud application logging for forensics. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Taichung, Taiwan, 21–24 March 2011; pp. 178–184. [Google Scholar]
- Sang, T. A log based approach to make digital forensics easier on cloud computing. In Proceedings of the 2013 Third International Conference on Intelligent System Design and Engineering Applications, Hong Kong, China, 16–18 January 2013; pp. 91–94. [Google Scholar]
- Patidar, M.; Bansal, P. Log-Based Approach for Security Implementation in Cloud CRM’s. In Data, Engineering and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 33–43. [Google Scholar]
- Santra, P.; Roy, A.; Midya, S.; Majumder, K.; Phadikar, S. Log-Based Cloud Forensic Techniques: A Comparative Study. In Networking Communication and Data Knowledge Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 49–59. [Google Scholar]
- Satrya, G.B.; Shin, S.Y. Proposed method for mobile forensics investigation analysis of remnant data on Google Drive client. J. Internet Technol. 2018, 19, 1741–1751. [Google Scholar]
- McKemmish, R. What Is Forensic Computing? Australian Institute of Criminology Canberra: Canberra, Australia, 1999.
- Kent, K.; Chevalier, S.; Grance, T.; Dang, H. Guide to integrating forensic techniques into incident response. NIST Spec. Publ. 2006, 10, 800–886. [Google Scholar]
- Birk, D.; Wegener, C. Technical issues of forensic investigations in cloud computing environments. In Proceedings of the 2011 Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering, Oakland, CA, USA, 26 March 2011; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, Y.; Varma, S. Development and Design Strategies of Evidence Collection Framework in Cloud Environment. In Social Networking and Computational Intelligence; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 27–37. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, K.; Xuan, R. Book Review: Guide to computer forensics and investigations. J. Digit. Forensics Secur. Law. 2008, 3, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alqahtany, S.; Clarke, N.; Furnell, S.; Reich, C. Cloud forensics: A review of challenges, solutions and open problems. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Cloud Computing (ICCC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 26–29 April 2015; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Ko, R.K.; Jagadpramana, P.; Mowbray, M.; Pearson, S.; Kirchberg, M.; Liang, Q.; Lee, B.S. TrustCloud: A framework for accountability and trust in cloud computing. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE World Congress on Services, Washington, DC, USA, 4–9 July 2011; pp. 584–588. [Google Scholar]
- Dykstra, J.; Sherman, A.T. Acquiring forensic evidence from infrastructure-as-a-service cloud computing: Exploring and evaluating tools, trust, and techniques. Digit. Investig. 2012, 9, S90–S98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alenezi, A.; Atlam, H.F.; Wills, G.B. Experts reviews of a cloud forensic readiness framework for organizations. J. Cloud Comput. 2019, 8, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, M.N.A.; Ullah, S.W.; Khan, A.R.; Khan, K. Analysis of digital investigation techniques in cloud computing paradigm. Int. J.-Next-Gener. Comput. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiregi, M.; Navimipour, N.J. A comprehensive study of the trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud computing. J. Serv. Sci. Res. 2017, 9, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delport, W.; Köhn, M.; Olivier, M.S. Isolating a Cloud Instance for a Digital Forensic Investigation. In Proceedings of the Information Security South Africa Conference (ISSA 2011), Johannesburg, South Africa, 15–17 August 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Chen, X.; Huang, Q.; Wong, D.S. Digital provenance: Enabling secure data forensics in cloud computing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2014, 37, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grispos, G.; Storer, T.; Glisson, W.B. Calm before the storm: The challenges of cloud computing in digital forensics. Int. J. Digit. Crime Forensics (IJDCF) 2012, 4, 28–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haque, S.; Atkison, T. A forensic enabled data provenance model for public cloud. J. Digit. Forensics Secur. Law. 2018, 13, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deylami, H.; Gutierrez, J.; Sinha, R. More Than Old Wine in New Bottles: A Secure Live Virtual Machine Job Migration Framework for Cloud Systems Integrity. In Proceedings of the 2018 Eleventh International Conference on Mobile Computing and Ubiquitous Network (ICMU), Auckland, New Zealand, 5–8 October 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Geethakumari, G.; Belorkar, A. Regenerating cloud attack scenarios using LVM2 based system snapshots for forensic analysis. Int. J. Cloud Comput. Serv. Sci. 2012, 1, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Trenwith, P.M.; Venter, H.S. Digital forensic readiness in the cloud. In Proceedings of the 2013 Information Security for South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa, 14–16 August 2013; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Alex, M.E.; Kishore, R. Forensics framework for cloud computing. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2017, 60, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Zhang, W.; Tseng, F.H. Satellite mobile edge computing: Improving QoS of high-speed satellite-terrestrial networks using edge computing techniques. IEEE Netw. 2019, 33, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valancius, V.; Laoutaris, N.; Massoulié, L.; Diot, C.; Rodriguez, P. Greening the internet with nano data centers. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Roma, Italy, 1–4 December 2009; pp. 37–48. [Google Scholar]
- Atayero, A.A.; Feyisetan, O. Security issues in cloud computing: The potentials of homomorphic encryption. J. Emerg. Trends Comput. Inf. Sci. 2011, 2, 546–552. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Yu, Y.; Min, G.; Susilo, W.; Ni, J.; Choo, K.K.R. Fuzzy identity-based data integrity auditing for reliable cloud storage systems. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2017, 16, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zafar, F.; Khan, A.; Malik, S.U.R.; Ahmed, M.; Anjum, A.; Khan, M.I.; Javed, N.; Alam, M.; Jamil, F. A survey of cloud computing data integrity schemes: Design challenges, taxonomy and future trends. Comput. Secur. 2017, 65, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esposito, C.; Castiglione, A.; Pop, F.; Choo, K.K.R. Challenges of connecting edge and cloud computing: A security and forensic perspective. IEEE Cloud Comput. 2017, 4, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arthur, K.K.; Venter, H.S. An Investigation into Computer Forensic Tools. In Proceedings of the ISSA 2004 Enabling Tomorrow Conference, Midrand, South Africa, 30 June–1 July 2004; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Balamurugan, B.; Krishna, P.V. Extensive survey on usage of attribute based encryption in cloud. J. Emerg. Technol. Web Intell. 2014, 6, 263–272. [Google Scholar]
- Shabir, M.Y.; Iqbal, A.; Mahmood, Z.; Ghafoor, A. Analysis of classical encryption techniques in cloud computing. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2016, 21, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Punithasurya, K.; Priya, S.J. Analysis of different access control mechanism in cloud. Int. J. Appl. Inf. Syst. 2012, 4, 34–39. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, Y.; Liu, F.; Cai, Z.; Xiao, N.; Zhao, Z. Edge-based efficient search over encrypted data mobile cloud storage. Sensors 2018, 18, 1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rathi, K.; Karabiyik, U.; Aderibigbe, T.; Chi, H. Forensic analysis of encrypted instant messaging applications on Android. In Proceedings of the 2018 6th International Symposium on Digital Forensic and Security (ISDFS), Antalya, Turkey, 22–25 March 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Boneh, D.; Di Crescenzo, G.; Ostrovsky, R.; Persiano, G. Public key encryption with keyword search. In International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 506–522. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, P.; Tang, S.; Xu, P.; Wu, Q.; Hu, H.; Susilo, W. Practical multi-keyword and boolean search over encrypted e-mail in cloud server. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, N.H.; Hamid, A.S.S.A.; Shahidan, N.S.S.; Ariffin, K.A.Z. Cloud Forensic Analysis on pCloud: From Volatile Memory Perspectives. In International Conference for Emerging Technologies in Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 3–15. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, J.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Hu, X.; Ma, J. Enabling (End-to-End) Encrypted Cloud Emails With Practical Forward Secrecy. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garfinkel, S.L. Digital forensics research: The next 10 years. Digit. Investig. 2010, 7, S64–S73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maher, R.C. Principles of Forensic Audio Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, M.K.; Zakariah, M.; Malik, H.; Choo, K.K.R. A novel audio forensic data-set for digital multimedia forensics. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2018, 50, 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perner, P. Novel Methods for Forensic Multimedia Data Analysis: Part II. In Digital Forensic Science; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Shan, M.; Tsai, T. A Cross-Verification Approach for Protecting World Leaders from Fake and Tampered Audio. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2010.12173. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, A.; Jindal, N.; Singh, K. A review on digital image forensics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Signal Processing (ICSP 2016), Melmaruvathur, India, 7–9 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Garfinkel, S.L. Carving contiguous and fragmented files with fast object validation. Digit. Investig. 2007, 4, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, R.R.; Mohamad, K.M.; Jamel, S.; Khalid, S.K.A. A review of digital forensics methods for JPEG file carving. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2018, 96, 5841–5856. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, X.; Li, J.H.; Wang, S.L.; Cheng, F.; Huang, X.S. Recent advances in passive digital image security forensics: A brief review. Engineering 2018, 4, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alherbawi, N.; Shukur, Z.; Sulaiman, R. JPEG image classification in digital forensic via DCT coefficient analysis. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2018, 77, 12805–12835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullan, P.; Riess, C.; Freiling, F. Forensic source identification using JPEG image headers: The case of smartphones. Digit. Investig. 2019, 28, S68–S76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silaparasetty, V. Deep Learning Projects Using TensorFlow 2; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Taimori, A.; Razzazi, F.; Behrad, A.; Ahmadi, A.; Babaie-Zadeh, M. A part-level learning strategy for JPEG image recompression detection. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2021, 80, 12235–12247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karampidis, K.; Kavallieratou, E.; Papadourakis, G. A review of image steganalysis techniques for digital forensics. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2018, 40, 217–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yahya, A. Steganography Techniques for Digital Images; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, N.F.; Katzenbeisser, S. A survey of steganographic techniques. In Information Hiding. 2000; pp. 43–78. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245096254_A_survey_of_steganographic_techniques (accessed on 28 April 2021).
- Steganalysis, H.C.D.B.; Westfeld, A. F5—A steganographic algorithm. In Proceedings of the Information Hiding: 4th International Workshop, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 25–27 April 2001; pp. 289–302. [Google Scholar]
- Provos, N. Defending Against Statistical Steganalysis. In Proceedings of the Usenix Security Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 13–17 August 2001; pp. 323–336. [Google Scholar]
- Sallee, P. Model-based steganography. In International Workshop on Digital Watermarking; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 154–167. [Google Scholar]
- Solanki, K.; Sarkar, A.; Manjunath, B. YASS: Yet another steganographic scheme that resists blind steganalysis. In International Workshop on Information Hiding; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 16–31. [Google Scholar]
- Abdulwahedand, M.N.; Mustafa, S.; Rahim, M.S.M. Image Spatial Domain Steganography: A study of Performance Evaluation Parameters. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 9th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), Shah Alam, Malaysia, 7 October 2019; pp. 309–314. [Google Scholar]
- Yeung, Y.; Lu, W.; Xue, Y.; Huang, J.; Shi, Y.Q. Secure binary image steganography with distortion measurement based on prediction. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 2019, 30, 1423–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arunkumar, S.; Subramaniyaswamy, V.; Vijayakumar, V.; Chilamkurti, N.; Logesh, R. SVD-based robust image steganographic scheme using RIWT and DCT for secure transmission of medical images. Measurement 2019, 139, 426–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holub, V.; Fridrich, J. Digital image steganography using universal distortion. In Proceedings of the First ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security, Montpellier, France, 17–19 June 2013; pp. 59–68. [Google Scholar]
- Amritha, P.; Sethumadhavan, M.; Krishnan, R.; Pal, S.K. Anti-forensic approach to remove stego content from images and videos. J. Cyber Secur. Mobil. 2019, 8, 295–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fridrich, J.; Goljan, M.; Du, R. Reliable detection of LSB steganography in color and grayscale images. In Workshop on Multimedia and Security: New Challenges; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 27–30. [Google Scholar]
- Fridrich, J.; Kodovsky, J. Rich models for steganalysis of digital images. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2012, 7, 868–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dalal, M.; Juneja, M. Steganography and Steganalysis (in digital forensics): A Cybersecurity guide. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2021, 80, 5723–5771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagnall, R.J. Reversing the steganography myth in terrorist operations: The asymmetrical threat of simple intelligence dissemination techniques using common tools. SANS Inf. Secur. Read. Room 2002, 19. Available online: https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/stenganography/paper/556 (accessed on 28 April 2021).
- Mihalache, D. Child Pornography in Internet; Analele Universităţii Libere Internaţionale din Moldova (Seria Economie): Chisinau, Moldova, 2009; pp. 225–229. [Google Scholar]
- Mazurczyk, W.; Wendzel, S. Information hiding: Challenges for forensic experts. Commun. ACM 2017, 61, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stier, C. Russian Spy Ring Hid Secret Messages on the Web. Available online: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19126-russian-spy-ring-hid-secret-messages-on-the-web/ (accessed on 28 April 2021).
- Dhawan, S.; Gupta, R. Analysis of various data security techniques of steganography: A survey. Inf. Secur. J. 2021, 30, 63–87. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, M.; Haggerty, J.; Gresty, D.; Lamb, D. Forensic investigation of cloud computing systems. Netw. Secur. 2011, 2011, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’shaughnessy, S.; Keane, A. Impact of cloud computing on digital forensic investigations. In Ifip International Conference on Digital Forensics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 291–303. [Google Scholar]
- Armbrust, M.; Fox, A.; Griffith, R.; Joseph, A.D.; Katz, R.; Konwinski, A.; Lee, G.; Patterson, D.; Rabkin, A.; Stoica, I.; et al. A view of cloud computing. Commun. ACM 2010, 53, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baldwin, J.; Alhawi, O.M.; Shaughnessy, S.; Akinbi, A.; Dehghantanha, A. Emerging from the cloud: A bibliometric analysis of cloud forensics studies. In Cyber Threat Intelligence; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 311–331. [Google Scholar]
- Topi, H.; Tucker, A. Computing Handbook: Information Systems and Information Technology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Zimmerman, S.; Glavach, D. Cyber forensics in the cloud. IA Newsl. 2011, 14, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
- Freet, D.; Agrawal, R.; John, S.; Walker, J.J. Cloud forensics challenges from a service model standpoint: IaaS, PaaS and SaaS. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Management of Computational and Collective Intelligence in Digital Ecosystems, Caraguatatuba, Brazil, 25–29 October 2015; pp. 148–155. [Google Scholar]
- James, J.I.; Jang, Y. Practical and legal challenges of cloud investigations. arXiv 2015, arXiv:1502.01133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choo, K.K.R. Legal issues in the cloud. IEEE Cloud Comput. 2014, 1, 94–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snaith, B.; Hardy, M.; Walker, A. Emergency ultrasound in the prehospital setting: The impact of environment on examination outcomes. Emerg. Med. J. 2011, 28, 1063–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Challenges/Issues | Existing Solutions | Cloud Services Model Applicability | Application Details | Limitations/Drawbacks | Reference(s) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IaaS | PaaS | SaaS | |||||
Volatile Data | Persistent Storage Framework | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | Enable continuous use of customer data storage | It comes at an added cost; privacy issues; largely depends on the implementation of international policy between the CSP and the client | [5,45] |
Integrated (iterative) conceptual digital forensic framework | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | It uses the live forensic method of testing and analyzing VMs | There is no proof of testing and evaluation | [21,48,49] | |
The continuous data synchronization model | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | Continuous Synchronization on API | There is no evidence of any criminal activity | [48,49] | |
Access to Evidence | Log-based Model | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | Uses transaction and event logs | It does not resolve issues related to dynamic data | [41,43] |
✗ | ✓ | ✓ | It uses a separate location log on the client-side aligned with the CSP log using different IDs and timestamps. Additionally, it uses different IDs and timestamps that provide relevant event details | The CSP determines what information is included on the client side | [42,43] | ||
Log-based Model (Client-Side Evidence Identification Process) | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | Built-in application logs | No proof of implementation or evaluation | [5,42,44] | |
Standard Logging Mechanism | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | It uses the Eucalyptus framework and the standard log security process | N. A | [22] | |
Encrypted Logging Model | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | Uses system status and log files | N. A | [48] | |
CSP Dependency | The proposed framework collects the forensic data outside the cloud to avoid CSP dependency | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | The proposed framework is validated through Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack | It is used for small prototype models only | [64] |
Data Collection | VM Snapshots | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | Works by freezing and investigating the system in the IaaS model | This solution is limited to mobile devices’ access in the private delivery model but not to public clouds | [18,61] |
Data Acquisition: Trust Issues | Trust Model | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | Uses multiple layers of trust | An additional level of reliance is required on the management of aircraft | [53,54,55,56] |
Trust cloud | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | Uses multiple layers of trust | An extra level of trust is required in the management plane | [51,53,54] | |
Data Integrity and Chain of Custody | Trust Platform Module | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Provides added security for authentication, encryption and signing | Problems with compatibility with most current devices in the cloud. Additionally, some security issues in those operating procedures can be changed without being detected | [5,48,53] |
Data Isolation and Multitenancy Issues | Isolation Techniques and Procedures | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Functions by isolating and separating cloud conditions to prevent contamination and disruption of evidence during collection | The strategies mentioned were strategic, as also presented by Alqahtany et al. (2015), were theoretical and were not tested or under any experiment | [51,57] |
Data Provenance | Secure Provenance Scheme | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Tasks by recording the identity and processing history of data objects in the cloud and based on group signature and attribute-based techniques | The safety of the proposed system is shown under certain assumptions that they say are commonplace and proven | [58,60] |
Chain of Custody | Staff Training | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | N. A | N. A | [59,60] |
Lack of Forensic Tools | Forensic Open-Stack Tools (FROST); Offline Windows Analysis and Data Extraction (OWADE) | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | Management Plane | Works only on drives with Windows XP installed (for OWADE) | [51,53] |
Data Loss due to Machine Restart | Snapshots | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Functions by replaying the event of an attack and restore the system to the state it was before | N. A | [62] |
Lack of understanding of cloud complexities and other technical comprehension | Training | N. A | N. A | N. A | N. A | N. A | [38] |
Stage | Approach | Advantage | Disadvantage/Limitations |
---|---|---|---|
Survey/Identification stage | Enhanced Digital Investigation Process (EIDIP) Model [36] |
|
|
Cybercrime Forensic Framework [40] |
|
| |
Log-based approach [41] |
|
| |
Log-based model [42] |
|
| |
Log-based approach for Cloud CRM [43] |
|
| |
Mobile forensic investigation for Remnant data [45] |
|
| |
Snapshot based on Technical and Legal Challenges [21] |
|
| |
Collection and Preservation stages | Clouds and Edge computing security challenges [51] |
|
|
TrustCloud [52] |
|
| |
Cloud Forensic Readiness Framework [54] |
|
| |
Secure provenance scheme [58] |
|
| |
Forensic Enabled Data Provenance Model [60] |
|
| |
Forensic Investigation using VM Snapshots [18] |
|
| |
Secure Live Job Migration Framework for multiple VM [61] |
|
| |
Examination and Analysis Stages | Pros and cons of digital forensic in Clouds [39] |
|
|
Reconstruction stage | Logical Volume Manager 2 (LVM2)-based system snapshot for forensic analysis [62] |
|
|
Presentation/Reporting stage | Digital Forensic Readiness [63] |
|
|
Tool | Description | Features | OS Compatibility | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pro-discover | It allows investigators to identify and re-allocate data on a computer disk. With the help of this tool the investigator can protect evidence and create quality reports for the use of legal procedures to be presented in the court. |
| Windows, Mac, and Linux | https://www.prodiscover.com (accessed on 6 May 2021) |
Sleuth Kit (+Autopsy) | It enables forensic analysis to check the hard drives and smartphones. |
| Windows and Linux | https://www.sleuthkit.org (accessed on 6 May 2021) |
FTK Imager | It can make several data copies without altering the actual evidence. This tool allows investigators to stipulate benchmarks to reduce extraneous data such as file size, pixel size and data type. |
| Windows only | https://accessdata.com/products-services/forensic-toolkit-ftk (accessed on 6 May 2021) |
Magnet RAM Capture | With the help of Magnet Ram Capture the investigators can retrieve and analyze valuable objects identified in the memory by capturing the memory of the suspicious computer. |
| Windows only | https://www.magnetforensics.com (accessed on 6 May 2021) |
CAINE | This tool can be integrated as a module into existing software tools. Further, with the help of CAINE, forensic investigator captures the timeline from RAM automatically. |
| Linux only | https://www.caine-live.net (accessed on 6 May 2021) |
X-Ways Forensic | Forensic investigator can use this tool to support disk cloning and imaging. Further, it allows the investigators to collaborate for the joint forensic with other peers from their group having the same tool. |
| Windows only | http://www.x-ways.net/forensics/ (accessed on 6 May 2021) |
Registry Recon | Forensic investigator can use this tool to extract, retrieve, and analyze registry information and data from Windows Operating systems. This program is helpful for effectively determining the external devices connected to any PC. |
| Windows only | https://arsenalrecon.com/products/ (accessed on 7 May 2021) |
PALADIN | This digital forensic software provides over 100 valuable tools to investigate any malicious content. It allows investigators to simplify the range of forensic tasks. |
| Windows and Linux only | https://sumuri.com/software/paladin/ (accessed on 7 May 2021) |
Volatility Framework | Forensic investigators use this tool to check the runtime state of a system using data exist in RAM. It is a Software for Volatility Framework, Memory Analysis and Digital Forensics. |
| Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux | https://www.volatilityfoundation.org (accessed on 7 May 2021) |
e-Fencer | It allows investigators to search for files from any device in a simple interface. Further, also helps investigators to meet computer forensics and cybersecurity needs |
| Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux | http://www.e-fense.com/products.php (accessed on 7 May 2021) |
EnCase | It helps investigators to retrieve credentials from the hard drive. It allows investigators to analyze files in depth to gather evidence such as documents and pictures, etc. |
| Windows only | https://www.guidancesoftware.com/encase-forensic (accessed on 7 May 2021) |
Crowdstrike | It can provide threat intelligence, endpoint protection and more. The forensic investigator can quickly discover and resolve cybersecurity incidents and prevent attackers in real- time. |
| Windows and Mac only | https://www.crowdstrike.com/endpoint-security-products/falcon-endpoint-protection-pro/ (accessed on 7 May 2021) |
Xplico | It supports Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), and other relevant networking protocols. There is no limits on number of files and no size restrictions on data entries. |
| Linux only | https://www.xplico.org (accessed on 7 May 2021) |
Wireshark | It is used for network testing, troubleshooting and to check the various traffics going through computer system by analyzing network packets. |
| Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux | https://www.wireshark.org (accessed on 7 May 2021) |
SANS SIFT | It provides digital forensics and event response testing facility on based on distribution tool of ubuntu. It can automatically update the DFIR (Digital Forensics and Event Response) package. |
| Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux | https://digital-forensics.sans.org/community/downloads/ (accessed on 6 May 2021) |
Design Parameter | Challenges |
---|---|
Distributed Nature and Remote Storage [26,32] | Establishes location and data identification as part of the investigation process. Additionally, identifying Cloud suspects and taking evidence as part of the preservation process is not possible. |
Elastic Storage and Volume of Data [118] | The scale, size, and size of Cloud penetration affect data collection and identification. Additionally, time constraints can identify interest data; there has been a danger of tampering with or undermining the evidence’s authenticity. |
Volatile Storage [5,45] | There is no guarantee that relevant data can be obtained if required. |
Volatile Data [5,45] | Data changes are permanent and thus can be easily destroyed; issues related to data emergence and real-time accountability. |
Multitenancy/Sharing and Virtualization [115,116,117] | Challenges by separating data and related evidence without affecting other clients/users. |
Security Obstacles Encryption [75,114] | High encryption and high levels of security are difficult to understand and/or pass. |
Cloud Service Model | Opportunities | Challenges |
---|---|---|
IaaS |
|
|
PaaS |
|
|
SaaS |
|
|
Challenge | Impact(s) |
---|---|
Lack of International Collaboration/Jurisdictional Issues, james2015practical, choo2014legal | It affects the timely arrest and detention of witnesses and suspects living/living abroad. |
Evidentiary Considerations: Admissibility; Authentication; Hearsay; Chain of Custody; and Preservation, casey2011digital, james2015practical, choo2014legal | Certain legal requirements regarding the taking of evidence and maintaining their integrity are very difficult to meet due to Cloud characteristics. |
‘Paid Service’, snaith2011emergency | Being a customer of the “paid service” Cloud would be counterproductive to approving any SLA that promotes third-party access to their data for intelligence purposes. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Prakash, V.; Williams, A.; Garg, L.; Savaglio, C.; Bawa, S. Cloud and Edge Computing-Based Computer Forensics: Challenges and Open Problems. Electronics 2021, 10, 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10111229
Prakash V, Williams A, Garg L, Savaglio C, Bawa S. Cloud and Edge Computing-Based Computer Forensics: Challenges and Open Problems. Electronics. 2021; 10(11):1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10111229
Chicago/Turabian StylePrakash, Vijay, Alex Williams, Lalit Garg, Claudio Savaglio, and Seema Bawa. 2021. "Cloud and Edge Computing-Based Computer Forensics: Challenges and Open Problems" Electronics 10, no. 11: 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10111229
APA StylePrakash, V., Williams, A., Garg, L., Savaglio, C., & Bawa, S. (2021). Cloud and Edge Computing-Based Computer Forensics: Challenges and Open Problems. Electronics, 10(11), 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10111229