Collecting and Analyzing Network-Based Evidence
Collecting and Analyzing Network-Based Evidence
Ashwini K. Singh1, Dhwaniket Kamble2, Abhishek Bains1, Naman Tiwari1, Tejas R. Deshmukh1,
Sanidhya Pandey1, Hemant Kumar1, Diksha M. Bhalerao2
1
Department of Information Technology, Bharti Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Maharashtra, Navi Mumbai-410210, India
2
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Bharti Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Maharashtra, Navi Mumbai-
410210, India
Corresponding Author:
Dhwaniket Kamble
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Bharti Vidyapeeth Deemed University
Navi Mumbai – 410210, India
Email: drkamble@bvucoep.edu.in
1. INTRODUCTION
Integrating network sniffing, capturing, and analysis is part of network forensics. Utilizing traffic
and event logs, a network security incident can be analyzed. Network forensics are essential to determine the
kind of network assault and find the offenders. Additionally, the evidence obtained during the investigation
must be produced through a rigorous investigation procedure in a legal context [1]. Nevertheless, there are
several reasons why network forensics is a difficult task. First, while capturing network traffic through a
network is straightforward in theory, it is somewhat challenging in practice because of several underlying
issues, such as the volume of data flowing over the network and the complexity of Internet protocols. As a
result, extensive resources are needed for network traffic recording [2]. Due to the huge quantities, it is
frequently impossible to record all the data that is transmitted across the network. Again, for later
examination, this recorded data needs to be backed up to free recording medium [3], [4]. Furthermore, the
most important and time-consuming duty is the examination of recorded data [5]. There are several
automated analysis tools available for forensic use, but they are insufficient because there is no way to
distinguish malicious traffic produced by an attacker from a pool of legitimate traffic with absolute certainty.
Because there is always a danger of receiving false positive results when using automated traffic analysis
tools, human judgement is equally essential. However, precautions should be taken to assure network
forensics preparedness in advance, such as by setting up proper event recording and data collection systems
that can provide important artifacts for examination during forensics inquiry.
2. METHOD
2.1. Collecting evidence
Locating and gathering information that is often present among network devices and along the
traffic paths inside a network. This data gathering is essential in the event of an incident where an outside
threat source is trying to control internal systems or steal information from the network [6], [7]. When
evaluating host evidence, network-based evidence is particularly helpful since it offers a second source of
event corroboration, which is crucial for identifying an incident's primary cause [8], [9].
2.2.1. Analyzing traffic for sniffing attempts and SMB password cracking attempts
In eavesdropping techniques like sniffing and man-in-the-middle assaults, an attacker places oneself
in between a client and a server to intercept messages. Attackers snoop through network traffic looking for
private data [11]. When trying to crack a server message block (SMB) password, Wireshark's network traffic
analysis would show many attempts to log in using various identities [19], [20]. A brute-force attack attempt
on the SMB protocol is clearly suggested by the data intercepted by Wireshark, which also shows many
usernames and the message "Error: STATUS LOGON FAILURE."
2.2.4. Analyze traffic for file transfer protocol (FTP) password cracking attempts
Password cracking is the process of acquiring or recovering passwords either by performing a
password guessing effort using a file containing frequently used passwords, or by utilising trial and error.
Dictionary assaults and brute force attacks are the names of these strategies, respectively. By counting the
number of login attempts made from the same IP address or username, a detective can spot this kind of
assault.
The FTP is a widely used protocol for transferring files between computers utilizing the TCP/IP
suite over the Internet. FTP is a client-server protocol that uses two channels of communication to connect a
client and server. The management of the discussions is done by one, and the transmission of the actual
material is done by the other. The server replies to a client's request for a download by providing the specific
file requested. The user must enter their username and password to log into the FTP server before starting an
FTP session. An FTP password assault involves the attacker attempting to discover any authorized user's
password.
Run Wireshark on the computer that is thought to be infected with malware, then look through the
current traffic patterns for any oddities. Once any suspicious or odd ports or IP addresses have been
identified, you should search internet databases to see whether any malware is using those ports or if they are
susceptible. As seen in the picture below, internet research into the suspicious port using speedguide.net's
port database discovered that the njRAT malware frequently uses it as a default port.
3. CONCLUSION
The main objective of the following research was to collect and analyze network-based evidence.
The aim has been achieved successfully. Collection of evidence is accomplished via various sniffer tools
such as tcpdump, wireshark, and Security information and Event management system (SIEM), an automated
system used by large enterprises to sort through system logs to generate possible attack report. Whereas for
analysis of evidence is performed by analyzing the traffic for Sniffing Attempts, MAC Flooding Attempt,
FTP Password Cracking Attempts, ARP Poisoning Attempt, Malware Activity and others. Evidence are not
just collected in hard disks and secondary storages. There is a wealth of information available from network
devices spread throughout the environment. With proper preparation, a CSIRT may be able to leverage the
evidence provided by these devices through solutions such as a SIEM. Greatest challenges in network
forensics is quantity of data generated by the network which counts around gigabytes of memory per day.
This paper will help to create legal boundaries and present evidence in more analyzed way by preparing for
the legal and tackle all the technical challenges of network evidence collection and Analyses.
REFERENCES
[1] J. He, C. Chang, P. He, and M. S. Pathan, “Network Forensics Method Based on Evidence Graph and Vulnerability Reasoning,”
Future Internet, vol. 8, no. 4, 2016, doi: 10.3390/fi8040054.
[2] S. Qureshi, S. Tunio, F. Akhtar, A. Wajahat, A. Nazir, and F. Ullah, “Network Forensics: A Comprehensive Review of Tools and
Techniques,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 12, p. 2021, May 2021, doi:
10.14569/IJACSA.2021.01205103.
[3] Y. Ping, “Study on the main form of network crime from the view of criminology,” Proceedings 2011 International Conference
on Human Health and Biomedical Engineering, HHBE 2011, pp. 1108–1111, 2011, doi: 10.1109/HHBE.2011.6029018.
[4] P. Wright and W. Fone, “Designing and managing networks to aid the capture and preservation of evidence to support the fight
against e-crime,” 2007 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, ICNSC’07, pp. 251–254, 2007, doi:
10.1109/ICNSC.2007.372786.
[5] Z. Tian, W. Jiang, Y. Li, and L. Dong, “A digital evidence fusion method in network forensics systems with Dempster-shafer
theory,” China Communications, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 91–97, 2014, doi: 10.1109/CC.2014.6880464.
[6] B. C. Cheng and H. Chen, “Quality assurance for evidence collection in network forensics,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 4298 LNCS, pp. 121–132,
2007, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-71093-6_10/COVER.
[7] A. Castiglione, G. Cattaneo, G. De Maio, and A. De Santis, “Forensically-Sound Methods to Collect Live Network Evidence,”
2013 IEEE 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), pp. 405–412, 2013,
doi: 10.1109/AINA.2013.133.
[8] H. S. Kim and H. K. Kim, “Network Forensic Evidence Acquisition (NFEA) with packet marking,” Proceedings - 9th IEEE
International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications Workshops, ISPAW 2011 - ICASE 2011, SGH
2011, GSDP 2011, pp. 388–393, 2011, doi: 10.1109/ISPAW.2011.27.
[9] M. Kumar, M. Hanumanthappa, and T. V. S. Kumar, “Crime investigation and criminal network analysis using archive call detail
records,” 2016 8th International Conference on Advanced Computing, ICoAC 2016, pp. 46–50, Jun. 2017, doi:
10.1109/ICOAC.2017.7951743.
[10] B. Turnbull and J. Slay, “Wi-Fi network signals as a source of digital evidence: Wireless network forensics,” ARES 2008 - 3rd
International Conference on Availability, Security, and Reliability, Proceedings, pp. 1355–1360, 2008, doi:
10.1109/ARES.2008.135.
[11] N. Paxton, G. J. Ahn, and B. Chu, “Towards practical framework for collecting and analyzing network-centric attacks,” 2007
IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration, IEEE IRI-2007, pp. 73–78, 2007, doi:
10.1109/IRI.2007.4296600.
[12] J. O. Nehinbe and P. Damuut, “Security issues in sensor networks and gathering admissible evidence in network forensics,”
Proceedings - UKSim 5th European Modelling Symposium on Computer Modelling and Simulation, EMS 2011, pp. 394–399,
2011, doi: 10.1109/EMS.2011.95.
[13] A. J. Masys, Ed., “Networks and Network Analysis for Defence and Security,” 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-04147-6.
[14] Digital Forensics Essentials Professional Series and EC-COUNCIL OFFICIAL CURRICULA., Digital Forensics Essentials
Version 1. , Version 1., vol. 1. EC-COUNCIL, 2021.
[15] C. Liu, A. Singhal, and D. Wijesekera, “A logic-based network forensic model for evidence analysis,” IFIP Adv Inf Commun
Technol, vol. 462, pp. 129–145, 2015, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24123-4_8/COVER.
[16] “Network Forensics: An Analysis of Techniques, Tools and Trends | Request PDF.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311739657_Network_Forensics_An_Analysis_of_Techniques_Tools_and_Trends
(accessed May 30, 2023).
[17] B. B. Jayasingh and M. R. Patra, “Rule Based Evidence Mining for Network Attack,” pp. 23–28, Apr. 2008, doi:
10.1109/ICIT.2007.47.
[18] I. Volarevic, M. Tomic, and L. Milohanic, “Network forensics,” 2022 45th Jubilee International Convention on Information,
Communication and Electronic Technology, MIPRO 2022 - Proceedings, pp. 1025–1030, 2022, doi:
10.23919/MIPRO55190.2022.9803427.
[19] Y. H. Liu, G. L. Chen, and L. Xie, “An email forensics analysis method based on social network analysis,” Proceedings - 2013
International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data, CLOUDCOM-ASIA 2013, pp. 563–569, 2013, doi:
10.1109/CLOUDCOM-ASIA.2013.38.
[20] “Network Evidence Collection | Packt Hub.” https://hub.packtpub.com/network-evidence-collection/ (accessed May 30, 2023).
[21] D. H. Kim and H. P. In, “Cyber criminal activity analysis models using Markov Chain for digital forensics,” Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on Information Security and Assurance, ISA 2008, pp. 193–198, 2008, doi: 10.1109/ISA.2008.90.
[22] N. Mohd Zainudin, M. Merabti, and D. Llewellyn-Jones, “Online social networks as supporting evidence: A digital forensic
investigation model and its application design,” 2011 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information
Systems, ICRIIS’11, 2011, doi: 10.1109/ICRIIS.2011.6125728.
[23] R. Zhang, M. Xie, and J. Bian, “ReLF: Scalable Remote Live Forensics for Android,” Proceedings - 2021 IEEE 20th
International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, TrustCom 2021, pp. 822–831, 2021,
doi: 10.1109/TRUSTCOM53373.2021.00117.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS