Modern techniques and methodologies for detecting attacks and malicious activities on computers and networks have evolved a lot over the last couple of years. The need for detecting intrusion attempts before the actual attack simplifies the job of securely administering computer networks. Often an attacker will probe different ports and services on a network to get intelligence about the structure of the network. Afterwards how and what services can be compromised is decided. This is a common strategy applied by most of the attackers and this is where Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) comes in. They simplify the job of detecting attacks well before the actual attack by tracing the trails that the attacker leaves while gathering intelligence about a network. Government legislations however often act as a barrier in accessing/ monitoring private communications. This article will particularly focus on the potential of using IDS logs as evidence in legal proceedings. It will also address the Commonwealth Telecommunication Interception Act to identify some conflicting issues that at some extent acts as a barrier for deployment of IDS tools.
There is a growing need for use of Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) in private and public corporations. These systems are very important to safeguard the huge distributed computing environment that a certain organization controls and manages. The log files that IDS generate can be massive depending on the volume of traffic and information they handle. It is important to understand that the use of IDS is a measure for securing the information system of companies and organization and they provide valuable support for diagnosing and reviewing security problems. Government legislators however, don’t consider this and they will often pass legislations that will stand on the way of public and private corporations in terms of using IDS as a security tool. The legislators need to understand that it is not only the police and intelligence agencies that need to intercept communications, private and public sector companies also need to intercept not for interception’s sake but for the sake of maintaining a secured information system. This article will try to address these issues in general it will also discuss the recent amendment in the telecommunications interception laws.
What is Intrusion Detection System (IDS)
Intrusion Detection is the act of discovering or determining the existence, presence, or fact of the wrongfully entering upon, seizing, or taking possession of the property of another. Intrusion Detection System (IDS) is any system or set of systems that has the ability to detect a change in the status of a system or network. There are two major types of IDS’s. They are Signature-based IDS and Anomaly-based IDS. The deployment of IDS can be in two forms one is Network-based IDS and the other is Host-based IDS.
Why use Intrusion Detection System (IDS)
IDS’s has become a part of every organization’s security system now days. They reduce risks of intrusions and prevent serious attempts to attack a system by alerting the administrators. IDS are capable of detecting preambles to attacks and with this they help to document and present the risks and threats. IDS serve as a quality control mechanism of the security system of an organization providing diagnosis, causes and details about different aspects of the security system.
Intrusion Detection System (IDS) can detect when an attacker has penetrated a system by exploiting an uncorrected or uncorrectable flaw. Furthermore, it can serve an important function in system protection, by bringing the fact that the system has been attacked to the attention of the administrators who can contain and recover any damage that results. IDSs verify, itemize, and characterize the threat from both outside and inside your organization’s network, assisting you in making sound decisions regarding your allocation of computer security resources.
IDS Log Files As Forensic Evidence
The first thing that needs to be considered is the legal dimension. While gathering and processing the IDS logs the legal dimensions of conducting forensic analysis needs to be considered thoroughly because it may cause problems later on. The principles of ‘chain of custody’ or continuity of evidence and ‘auditability’ are well known in forensic circles, there remains a general lack of awareness of these principles within the computer security community. As a consequence the dangers of ‘dirtying the data’ remain prevalent. An additional issue that emerges during analysis concerns ‘acontextual’ presentation of individual entries in log files. This can lead to a misrepresentation of the significance or insignificance of individual entries and of the log file as a whole. Therefore, these things need to be carefully considered and practiced before using log files as forensic evidence.
Admissibility and Validity
All forensic evidences have to overcome two tests. One of them is admissibility and the other is weight. The USA – code title 28, section 1732 states that ‘ logs files are admissible as evidence if they are collected in the regular course of the business’. However, this principle of admissibility does not provide any guarantee that in any particular case log files will be deemed legally valid. There are other issues, which are inevitable to avoid. The ability to identify, track, trace and analyze log files is central to forensic investigations where digital evidence is main source of data. However, the forensic computing perspective moves beyond these technical skills to develop sensitivity towards questions over the admissibility of evidence and legal validity of particular data sets. Therefore, from forensic perspective the log files need to be valid and admissible.
IDS logs have definitely got evidentiary value provided that the IDS have not been compromised at the system level. IDS logs fall into the category of documentary evidence. But there are debates about this. “The issues aligned to evidence, acquisition and the suitability of Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) for preparing legally admissible evidence, reveals strong disagreement amongst technical and legal experts over the suitability of IDS as a tool for collecting, collating and presenting forensic evidence”. There are some reasons behind this.
The difference in legal systems has a lot to do with this debate. In Continental Europe the criminal procedure sees investigations being carried out by a specialist judge – juge d’instruction – in countries like England, the US, Australia and many former members of the old British Empire, investigations are carried out by the police or other law enforcement agency, the decision to prosecute is made by a separate body -District Attorney in the US, Crown Prosecution Service in England, and at trial the role of the judge is as chairman of the proceedings and enunciator of law. Separate opposing legal teams represent the arguments of prosecution (the Crown, the People) and the defense. The trier of fact is a jury. The procedure, known as adversarial, has lead to the development of complex rules of evidence, describing what can and cannot be put before the court for its consideration of fact.
This is a fact that places a lot of challenge in front the network security and forensic investigator community. It also makes it difficult for the police and other organizations to prosecute criminals involved in an attacks or intrusions. The need for understanding the technical details can be well carried out by a specialist judge as in Europe. Juries/ judges/lawyers however, have little knowledge and understanding on technical matters. This makes the cases involving technical matters really challenging.
IDS logs are generally recognized means of investigation based on a network /system traffic and they are potential legal proofs. Admissibility and weight are the legal validity of evidence for a submission in a particular jurisdiction and the ability of the court to be convinced by its presentation. Therefore, there is a need for the legal system to set a baseline standard on the admissibility of evidence and the potential use of that evidence as legal proof. The use of cyber-based evidence is becoming more important, and there is no reason to suppose that law enforcement agencies would not consider IDS logs as a potential source of cyber-based evidence.
Strengths and Weaknesses
There are significant strengths and weaknesses of IDS tools that are available. The first worry is “The intrusion detection systems are themselves susceptible to a variety of attacks and some authors argue that the majority of these systems are fundamentally flawed. In other words, the data collected by these systems may itself have been tampered with before the attack was discovered and/or investigated.
This is a very important issue because the strength and the advantage of using IDS will be demolished if it gets invaded or compromised. The possibility of having a 100% secured IDS is arguable but the focus should go on getting to build these system in such a way that that can be of value to the organization or agency. There is another problem with the IDS’s today which is their ability to cope with high volume of traffic and having high-speed connection backbones.
Lot of the products is still not capable of coping with volume of traffic and processing of the packets. Therefore, it is still a challenge but research is going on to improve the performance of the IDS to cope with the future bandwidth requirements. The IDS log files are not always are able to prove the point of the start and end of a specific conduct. Therefore, they often lack sufficient details. Some IDS log files will have limited capability of recording all real time events because of huge traffic flows. Often the IDS log files will not distinguish the legitimate and unwanted traffic. Therefore, follow up and review can become tedious.
There are other situations where IDS log files might fail to identify the intruders and have been tempered or altered. All these situations are very common with log files. However, still they are potential documentary evidence. The logs are bit and pieces of the big scenario. Given the challenge of detecting an incident, when the system log, firewall logs, IDS logs, application logs and all the other log information are combined together and haven’t been tampered, security and forensic experts will be able to identify the potential point of incident. Let’s not forge that IDS are serving our main purposes of real time analysis of network and host devices and they also capture and monitor the packets that arrive in the network. They provide fault tolerance and contribute to the overall security measures of an organization.
There remains a significant challenge in making the IDS devices to work as attack/ intrusion blocking systems that is why the intrusion prevention system has come up. They act as a detection system to attacks and intrusions but the alerts is generated after the attack. There are problems with IDS false positive and false negatives as well. The challenge still remains in handling encrypted data and OS specific application protocols. Signature based IDS need regular updating of their signature database this is still an issue but we have to deal with it. Privacy concern and legislations make it impossible to gather data for analysis and prosecution most of the time. There are significant things to argue about when we talk about privacy and legal aspects. This will follow shortly.
Point of Privacy Violation
The legislation does not clearly state what points are considered as privacy violations. Looking at packet headers, looking at packet data or something else. United States Code (criminal law) contains provisions for the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices. These devices are capable of monitoring and identifying the specific phone numbers dialed from a particular telephone line – they do not capture or record the content of any such communication. Certain legislation distinguishes between traffic data and content implies that traffic data is not considered to be private communications. If that is the case then there should not be any problem when IDS are used to analyze traffic data for monitoring purposes.
When it comes to the right to protect the information system and respect privacy laws, there should not be any distinction between government agencies and private/public sector agencies. A further issue is how the law distinguishes between stored and real-time communications such as telephone conversations. The point I’m trying to make is that “IDS are not sufficiently discriminating to distinguish between malicious activity (which should be monitored and logged) and benign activity (the privacy of which should be respected).” However, to determine whether a packet is malicious or not the header information (public information) of a packet is not enough for the IDS. Therefore, IDS do need to look into/intercept the packet.
Facts and Findings
The use of IDS may constitute an interception as defined in criminal law, and that the existing exemptions did not adequately address the interception of private communications for network protection purposes. Prior to the introduction of anti-terrorism legislation, the interception of private communications was conducted in accordance with strict rules. Specific conditions had to be met before an authorization could be granted, and strict conditions applied to the actual conduct of the interception. Interception was also generally limited to telephone communications. This is a fact and it is true that for anti-terrorism purpose the government has desperately passed a bill that provided too much power to Government agencies.
This law goes too far. It contains more power to access our emails and text messages than is needed and contains too few safeguards. Rather than rushing the law through house, the Government should have listened to the report of its members. It should have come up with a law that better protects the private communications of innocent people. Private/public organizations, security professionals, forensic examiners are looking forward towards the legislator community to enable them to legally obtain information and safeguard their IT environment.
The potential of using log files, as evidence is there. It is not impossible as long as the admissibility and weight restrictions are met. The legal aspect and value of using IDS logs as forensic evidence will change if the legislation allows the companies to legally intercept communications. But the fact is the legislation limits the use of IDS logs as forensic evidence and the legislations need to change in order to use the logs as evidence.
Author: Fahmid Imtiaz
School of Computer and Information Science
Edith Cowan University
Source: Forensic Focus (Computer Forensics News, Information and Community)
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds