Been meaning write something about my experience with Incident response and forensics and how knowledge of both field helped me.
Most of the organisations have Incident Response and Forensics as 2 different department and no overlap of services or transparency is seen between them. Personally, I believe it is not a good approach as Incident Response and Forensics team should work hand in hand to get the most out of the investigation. There are organisation who thinks Forensics are only to collect evidence. Yes indeed I was shocked!!!
Both stream requires well organised plans and procedures and individuals with strong technical expertise. Both streams have standards – NIST 800-61 of IR and 800-86 for Forensics. One must understand these standards.
When an organisation is performing IR, imagine the responder has no forensic knowledge.
- The reason we perform incident response is to understand what happened, how it happened, how we can stop it to further affect/infect our systems and how we can stop in future – Preparation, Identification, Containment, Remediation, Recovery and Lesson Learned. As mentioned in my earlier blog most organisation perform Preparation, Identification and Recovery. Is this due to improper process ? Is it because the responder doesn’t know the IR Phases? Is it due to time constraints or can’t be bothered?
- Now to understand what happened (e.g., malware infection), one must understand malware, and how it interacts with the system and what artefacts are involved. This is where Forensic knowledge will come in place. Handling a malware incident, one must know malware analysis and in certain scenarios reverse engineering. Let’s say you are not sure its a malware infection, however system are showing signs of unusual behaviour. As an incident responder one may think to just run certain tool to identify or understand behaviour – nothing wrong however, this may alter certain files by treating them malicious – like what a endpoint protection does by performing quarantine.
- A forensic investigator will first manually investigate the system and learn why a system is behaving in such manner – look through process (parent/child), file paths, services etc to determine what is not part of the system. I am not saying tool will not be used but this is about a process. Forensic investigator may choose to run Redline for example.
- The approach taken by 2 individuals are always different but the end goal should remain the same – reduce impact and determine indicators of compromise and TTPs (Tools, techniques and procedure) that can be used in earlier detection in future. When this is not performed our adversaries will always have tactical advantage over us.
An ideal approach I prefer is that an Incident Responder must have certain knowledge of forensics that can assist him/her in making sure our investigation is not only to clean the system (an anti-virus/anti-malware can do that), but identify the artefacts and preserve them for further investigation if time permits. Forensics should be performed in parallel to incident response.
IR is more process driven and forensics allows to deep dive into systems to identify bad actors. Forensics is time consuming and most of the time organisations prefer not to include them as they want business or system to return to its normal state. IR and Forensics should also communicate to other security network team and share the outcome of investigations.
I will be writing more about IR and Forensics methodologies (technical and non-technical) and answer most common question – how do i go by starting in IR or Forensics (DFIR). This will supplement the Threat Hunting article that I am working on.
One thought on “Incident Response and Forensics – The two towers”