Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.724863
Title: A framework for the systematic evaluation of malware forensic tools
Author: Kennedy, Ian Martin
ISNI:       0000 0004 6421 2993
Awarding Body: Open University
Current Institution: Open University
Date of Award: 2017
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
Following a series of high profile miscarriages of justice linked to questionable expert evidence, the post of the Forensic Science Regulator was created in 2008 with a remit to improve the standard of practitioner competences and forensic procedures. It has since moved to incorporate a greater level of scientific practice in these areas, as used in the production of expert evidence submitted to the UK Criminal Justice System. Accreditation to their codes of practice and conduct will become mandatory for all forensic practitioners by October 2017. A variety of challenges with expert evidence are explored and linked to a lack of a scientific methodology underpinning the processes followed. In particular, the research focuses upon investigations where malicious software (‘malware’) has been identified. A framework, called the ‘Malware Analysis Tool Evaluation Framework’ (MATEF), has been developed to address this lack of methodology to evaluate software tools used during investigations involving malware. A prototype implementation of the framework was used to evaluate two tools against a population of over 350,000 samples of malware. Analysis of the findings indicated that the choice of tool could impact on the number of artefacts observed in malware forensic investigations as well as identifying the optimal execution time for a given tool when observing malware artefacts. Three different measures were used to evaluate the framework. The first of these evaluated the framework against the requirements and determined that these were largely met. Where the requirements were not met these are attributed to matters either outside scope or the fledgling nature of the research. Another measure used to evaluate the framework was to consider its performance in terms of speed and resource utilisation. This identified scope for improvement in terms of the time to complete a test and the need for more economical use of disk space. Finally, the framework provides a scientific means to evaluate malware analysis tools, hence addressing the Research Question subject to the level at which ground truth is established. A number of contributions are produced as the output of this work. First there is confirmation for the case for a lack of trusted practice in the field of malware forensics. Second, the MATEF itself, as it facilitates the production of empirical evidence of a tool’s ability to detect malware artefacts. A third contribution is a set of requirements for establishing trusted practice in the use of malware artefact detection tools. Finally, empirical evidence that supports both the notion that the choice of tool can impact on the number of artefacts observed in malware forensic investigations as well as identifying the optimal execution time for a given tool when observing malware artefacts.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.724863  DOI: Not available
Share: