The challenge of cloud computing forensics

As the digital landscape evolves, so does the difficulty of safeguarding it. This is especially true in cloud computing, which is now the mother of all IT complexity, with security challenges that confound forensic investigators. Lately, I’ve noticed an increasing number of people in law enforcement taking my cloud courses. They are not there to develop cloud solutions for businesses but to learn how to combat cybercrime. More tools are needed to help everyone fight these emerging security threats.

Enter the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with its 87-page NISTIR 8006 publication, a cornerstone document that not only anticipates cloud computing forensic science challenges but also provides proactive security solutions. This strategic approach is crucial in preparing the industry for a future where cloud environments are secure, reliable, and resilient, giving you the confidence that you are ready for what’s to come.

The NISTIR 8006 document addresses and categorizes the challenges of digital forensic science within cloud computing environments, providing actionable solutions. This document identifies technical, legal, and organizational barriers and advocates for establishing standards and technologies to address them. NIST’s collaborative approach, which includes industry, governance, and IT leaders (including myself), ensures that multiple voices are developing these solutions.

NIST’s guidance

Not to sound like a fanboy of NIST, but this is essential stuff. NISTIR 8006 dissects technical, legal, and organizational hurdles, providing a road map that lays the groundwork for overcoming them. I, along with many others, have long emphasized the value of having a clear, actionable framework, which NIST just delivered to digital forensic professionals and cloud architects.

This document is useful in my practice because it provides a standard created by a consortium rather than a single biased technology provider or thought leader. It encourages dialogue within the industry, promoting the development and adoption of security frameworks tailored to the complexities of cloud ecosystems. This sets the stage for more cohesive standards.

What I find most interesting in the NIST document is its emphasis on training people to solve crimes involving cloud computing platforms. Police and prosecutors often overlook the platforms where cybercrimes take place due to the complex investigative knowledge required and because the systems often lack forensic documentation. As crimes involving cloud platforms become more frequent, there is an urgent need for the skills to conduct forensic investigations. Enterprises migrating to cloud infrastructures also face forensic issues that IT must address in traditional environments.

NIST also fosters an environment where forensic science can thrive. For instance, the document explores virtual machine management and highlights the necessity for specific security measures within virtual environments, such as isolating a compromised machine and seamlessly achieving connectivity, control, and containment. This prevents malware from compromising the virtual ecosystem’s integrity, which has been a common source of attacks during the past 10 years.

The inherent difficulties of cloud forensics

Cloud environments present unique technical challenges for forensic investigations due to data replication, multitenancy, and the lack of location transparency.

Data replication across multiple locations complicates forensics processes that require the ability to pinpoint sources for analysis. Consider the challenge of retrieving deleted data from cloud systems—not just a technical obstacle, but a matter of accountability that is often not addressed by IT until it’s too late.

Multitenancy involves shared resources among multiple users, making it difficult to distinguish and segregate data. This is a systemic problem for cloud security, and it is particularly problematic for cloud platform forensics. The NIST document acknowledges this challenge and recommends the implementation of access mechanisms and frameworks so companies can maintain data integrity and manage incident response. Thus, the mechanisms are in place to deal with issues once they occur because accounting happens on an ongoing basis.

The lack of location transparency is a nightmare. Data resides in various physical jurisdictions, all with different laws and cultural considerations. Crimes may occur on a public cloud point of presence in a country that disallows warrants to examine the physical systems, whereas other countries have more options for law enforcement. Guess which countries the criminals choose to leverage.

Effective stakeholder coordination and clear protocols are necessary to direct forensic investigations within cloud environments. This means defining roles and responsibilities to ensure processes align with regulatory requirements.

Furthermore, it is important to prioritize data integrity and preservation in cloud forensics. Implementing cryptographic measures and validated forensic tools are essential to the trustworthiness of data, ensuring it remains untampered with throughout an investigation.

Understanding these issues can help commercial enterprises better prepare for and manage potential forensic challenges in their cloud operations. I have emphasized the importance of foresight and adaptability as essential elements for technological success, particularly in the context of general cloud architectures and solutions.

NISTIR 8006 calls on industry stakeholders to rethink and reinforce their approach to digital forensics. By following this guidance, organizations can move closer to cloud systems that offer improved security and are as safe, if not safer, than systems found in their data centers. This is just a small step toward making secure systems more of a reality, and I believe it’s a step in the right direction.