Sharing New Forensic Artifacts In June 2018 There Was A Blog

Sharing New Forensic Artifactsin June 2018 There Was A Blog Ar

Topic: Sharing New Forensic Artifacts In June 2018, there was a blog article posted that discussed a "secret" tool that was used to pull down user e-mail data from Office 365, known as the "Activities" API. The blog author and other digital forensics contributors had a debate around the ethics of forensic examiners and organizations having this "secret" tool and not making it known to the forensic community and whether it was appropriate to keep the tool secret. A direct impact, as illustrated from LMG security blog, was around Business E-mail Compromise (BEC) and as to whether you could prove there was a breach or not, rather than assuming a breach based on lack of evidence and the organization having to deal with consequences of the assumed breach.

Unfortunately, Microsoft has seemed to end access to the Activities API with weeks of the issue being discussed publicly. Which may be a consequence in it of itself. Not just for the above scenario, but in general, do you feel it is ethical for forensic examiners and organizations to share or not share newly identified forensic artifacts and information (not custom developed tools) with the forensic community at large? Does it depend on how the information was identified? Should competitive advantage be considered?

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding the sharing of newly identified forensic artifacts among professionals in the digital forensics community are complex and multifaceted. They revolve around the principles of transparency, security, competitive advantage, and the potential impact on investigations and organizations. The incident involving the Office 365 "Activities" API, as discussed in the June 2018 blog, exemplifies the dilemmas faced when proprietary tools or techniques are kept under wraps, and whether disclosing such artifacts benefits or harms the broader forensic community and public trust.

One of the fundamental tenets of scientific and technical progress in digital forensics is the open exchange of information. Sharing forensic artifacts, such as newly discovered metadata, artifacts, or analysis techniques, can accelerate the development of better investigative methods, improve cross-case comparability, and foster a collaborative environment that benefits all stakeholders. When forensic artifacts are shared openly, they become part of a collective knowledge base that can be scrutinized, validated, and improved upon, thus enhancing the overall quality and reliability of forensic investigations (Rogers & Seigfried-Spellar, 2020).

However, the issue becomes murky when the artifacts or tools are proprietary, classified, or have been developed secretly. In the case of the "Activities" API, the tool was used covertly by certain organizations or forensic practitioners, raising questions about transparency. If such artifacts were kept secret due to concerns over competitive advantage, this could hinder peer review and independent verification, which are essential for maintaining scientific rigor. Moreover, withholding valuable forensic knowledge can impede the progress of the digital forensic field, potentially leading to inconsistent or unreliable results across cases and organizations (Casey, 2019).

On the other hand, organizations or forensic examiners might justify withholding certain artifacts or tools to maintain a competitive advantage in the security field. Competitive intelligence in cybersecurity and digital forensics can be seen as vital for an organization’s market position. Proprietary tools often form part of a company’s intellectual property portfolio, and their premature disclosure could undermine their commercial viability (Lillis, 2017).

Nevertheless, the ethical considerations lean strongly toward promoting transparency and sharing for forensic artifacts that are not proprietary or custom-developed. The primary responsibility of forensic professionals is to facilitate justice and uphold the integrity of investigations. Classified or undisclosed artifacts that could significantly impact the reliability of evidence or the ability to uncover truth may constitute a barrier to justice if kept secret. Furthermore, withholding such artifacts might undermine public trust in forensic investigations and cybersecurity practices.

Regarding whether the method of identification influences the sharing decision, transparency is generally favored when artifacts are discovered through open, replicable processes, as this fosters validation and peer review. In contrast, artifacts derived from hidden or proprietary sources should be scrutinized more carefully concerning disclosure policies. Ethical frameworks in digital forensics emphasize that sharing should prioritize the public interest and the pursuit of truth over competitive advantages, especially when public safety or legal outcomes are at stake (Nelson, Phillips, & Steuart, 2018).

In the specific situation of the "Activities" API, its abrupt disappearance from Microsoft’s offerings illustrates the volatility and consequences of secretive practices. While confidentiality is sometimes necessary for protecting sensitive law enforcement sources or security interests, it must be balanced against the broader benefits of transparency. The forensic community must advocate for responsible disclosure policies that promote both security and openness, ensuring that artifacts are shared when they can advance the field rather than hinder investigations or erode trust.

In conclusion, while organizational or proprietary interests might motivate keeping certain forensic artifacts secret, the ethical stance generally favors transparency—particularly for artifacts that are not developed as proprietary tools—due to their importance in advancing investigation techniques, ensuring accuracy, and maintaining public confidence. Ethical considerations should prioritize justice, reliability, and communal knowledge over competitive gains, especially in scenarios where withholding artifacts could impede legal processes or public safety.

References

• Casey, E. (2019). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Law. Academic Press.
• Lillis, R. (2017). Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics: Critical Infrastructure Security and Privacy. CRC Press.
• Nelson, B., Phillips, A., & Steuart, C. (2018). Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations. Cengage Learning.
• Rogers, M. K., & Seigfried-Spellar, K. C. (2020). Digital Forensics and Incident Response: an Expert's Guide. Wiley.
• Shah, R., & Gröger, G. (2019). Ethical Issues in Digital Forensics. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 14(1), 45-67.
• Hunter, R., et al. (2021). Open Science and Forensics: Balancing Transparency and Confidentiality. Forensic Science International, 319, 110644.
• Reese, P., & Wiegand, T. (2018). Forensic Data Analysis: A Guide for Computer Crime Investigators. CRC Press.
• Graves, M., & Weis, F. (2022). Proprietary Artifacts and Sharing Policies in Digital Forensics. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 67(2), 504-512.
• Ferguson, R., & Ackerman, T. (2018). Ethical Dimensions of Forensic Science. Forensic Science Review, 30(2), 98-107.
• Mahmoud, S., & Li, Y. (2020). The Role of Transparency in Digital Forensic Investigations. International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics, 12(3), 50-65.