Friday, August 17, 2007

IR "Best Practices"

I know it's been a while since I've posted, but work has been really keeping me busy...that's an excuse that we all use, but that's my story and I'm stickin' with it!

So, I've been talking to a number of different folks recently, having discussions during my travels to and fro about incident response and computer forensics. Many times, the issue of "best practices" has come up and that got me thinking...with no specific standards body governing computer forensics or incident response, who decides what "best practices" are? Is it FIRST? After all, they have "IR" in their name, and it does stand for "incident response". Is it the ACPO Guidelines that specify "best practices"?

Well, the easy answer (for me, anyway) is that "it depends". Funny, haha, I know. But in a sense, it does. "Best practices" depend a great deal on the political and cultural makeup of your organization; I've seen places where the incident response team has NO access to the systems, and must request data and information from the network operations staff, which has their own daily tasks and requirements.

But all that aside, we can focus on the technical details of responding to Windows systems. When we say "best practices", we can specify the information we need to get in order to properly assess the situation/incident, how to go about getting it (retrieve it locally, remotely, via live acquisition, via post-mortem exam, etc.), and in what order to retrieve that data (the ACPO Guidelines specify dumping the contents of physical memory last, rather than first...), etc.

For example, we know that during live response, anything we do is going to leave an artifact. So, why not specify what data you're going to collect and the method by which you're going to collect that data? Then determine the artifacts that are left through testing, and document your procedure and artifacts (hint: things like batch files and scripts can constitute "documentation", particularly when burned to CD), and implement that procedure via some means (ie, batch file, script, etc.).

One of the questions that invariably comes up during discussions of live response and "best practices" is, can data collected via live response be used as evidence in court? I would suggest that the answer is, "why not?" After all, an assault victim can be treated by EMTs, operated on by a surgeon, and cared for in a hospital, and the police can still collect evidence and locate and prosecute the perpetrator, right? It's all about documentation, folks.

No comments: