Modelo Integrado para Forense Computacional em Cenários Envolvendo Aplicações IoT

• Guilherme Schneider PUCRS
• Avelino Francisco Zorzo PUCRS
• Roben Castagna Lunardi IFRS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbseg.2023.232884

Abstract

The heterogeneity of data, devices, and communication protocols within the Internet of Things (IoT) domain significantly affects the investigative process of Computer Forensics. This study focuses on analyzing the distinctive features of scenarios like smart homes, smart offices, and smart buildings to propose an investigative model tailored to the IoT context. The effectiveness of the proposed model was assessed by Digital Forensics experts using a qualitative approach based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). The evaluation results demonstrate that the specialists found the model to be highly applicable and emphasize the necessity for greater investment in the planning stages of research conducted in intelligent environments.

References

Achar, S. (2022). Cloud computing forensics. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology, 13(3).

Ayers, R., Brothers, S., and Jansen, W. (2013). Guidelines on mobile device forensics (draft). NIST Special Publication, 800:101.

Beebe, N. L. and Clark, J. G. (2005). A hierarchical, objectives-based framework for the digital investigations process. Digital Investigation, 2(2):147–167.

Carrier, B. and Spafford, E. (2004). An event-based digital forensic investigation framework. Digital Investigation.

Casey, E. (2001). Handbook of computer crime investigation: forensic tools and technology. Elsevier.

Castelo Gómez, J. M., Carrillo Mondéjar, J., Roldán Gómez, J., and Martínez Martínez, J. L. (2021). A context-centered methodology for iot forensic investigations. International Journal of Information Security, 20(5):647–673.

Cohen, F. B. (2009). Digital forensic evidence examination, volume 101. Asp Press.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, pages 319–340.

Dawson, L. and Akinbi, A. (2021). Challenges and opportunities for wearable iot forensics: Tomtom spark 3 as a case study. Forensic Science International: Reports, 3:100198.

Figueiredo, I. S. d., Brito, C. C. d. S., Godoy, M. d. F. P. d. C., et al. (2013). Procedimento operacional padrão: perícia criminal.

Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics, pages 148–170.

ISO/IEC (2012). ISO/IEC 27037:2012 Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence.

Kohn, M. D., Eloff, M. M., and Eloff, J. H. (2013). Integrated digital forensic process model. Computers & Security, 38:103–115.

Lee, H. C., Palmbach, T., and Miller, M. T. (2001). Henry Lee’s crime scene handbook.

Li, S., Choo, K.-K. R., Sun, Q., Buchanan, W. J., and Cao, J. (2019). Iot forensics: Amazon echo as a use case. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(4):6487–6497.

Lombardi, M., Pascale, F., and Santaniello, D. (2021). Internet of things: A general overview between architectures, protocols and applications. Information, 12(2):87.

Lutta, P., Sedky, M., Hassan, M., Jayawickrama, U., and Bastaki, B. B. (2021). The complexity of internet of things forensics: A state-of-the-art review. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 38:301210.

Montasari, R., Hill, R., Montaseri, F., Jahankhani, H., and Hosseinian-Far, A. (2020). Internet of things devices: digital forensic process and data reduction. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics, 12(4):424–436.

OliveiraJr, E., Zorzo, A. F., and Neu, C. V. (2020). Towards a conceptual model for promoting digital forensics experiments. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 35:301014.

Pradini, R. S., Kriswibowo, R., and Ramdani, F. (2019). Usability evaluation on the sipr website uses the system usability scale and net promoter score. In 2019 International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology (SIET). IEEE.

Prado, G., Silveira, E. D., Valente, M. M. G., and Giacomolli, N. J. (2015). A quebra da cadeia de custódia das provas no processo penal brasileiro. In Valente, M. M. G., editor, Prova Penal: Estado Democrático de Direito, volume 1, pages 13–37.

Qatawneh, M., Almobaideen, W., Khanafseh, M., and Al Qatawneh, I. (2019). Dfim: A new digital forensics investigation model for internet of things. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 97(24).

Quick, D. and Choo, K.-K. R. (2018). Iot device forensics and data reduction. IEEE Access, 6:47566–47574.

Reith, M., Carr, C., and Gunsch, G. (2002). An examination of digital forensic models. International Journal of digital evidence, 1(3):1–12.

Rizal, R., Riadi, I., and Prayudi, Y. (2018). Network forensics for detecting flooding attack on internet of things (iot) device. Int. J. Cyber-Security Digit. Forensics, 7(4):382–390.

Salama, U., Yao, L., and Paik, H.-Y. (2022). A multilevel collective framework for internet of things digital forensic investigation. Computer, 55(2):44–53.

Stolojescu-Crisan, C., Crisan, C., and Butunoi, B.-P. (2021). An iot-based smart home automation system. Sensors, 21(11):3784.

Stoyanova, M., Nikoloudakis, Y., Panagiotakis, S., Pallis, E., and Markakis, E. K. (2020). A survey on the internet of things (iot) forensics: challenges, approaches, and open issues. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(2):1191–1221.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.

Tan, J. (2001). Forensic readiness. Cambridge, MA:@ Stake, 1.

Yang, W., Johnstone, M. N., Sikos, L. F., and Wang, S. (2020). Security and forensics in the internet of things: Research advances and challenges. In 2020 Workshop on Emerging Technologies for Security in IoT (ETSecIoT), pages 12–17. IEEE.

Zhang, X., Yuen, T. T., and Choo, K.-K. R. (2020). Experiential learning in digital forensics. Digital Forensic Education: An Experiential Learning Approach, pages 1–9.