The complexity of collaborative cyber crime investigations

Abstract

This article considers the challenges faced by

digital evidence specialists when collaborating

with other specialists and agencies in other

jurisdictions when investigating cyber crime. The

opportunities, operational environment and

modus operandi of a cyber criminal are

considered, with a view to developing the skills

and procedural support that investigators might

usefully consider in order to respond more

effectively to the investigation of cyber crimes

across State boundaries.

• author: Bednar, Peter ; Katos, Vasilios and Hennell, Cheryl
• organization: Department of Informatics
• publishing date: 2009
• type: Contribution to journal
• publication status: published
• subject: Information Systems, Social aspects
• keywords: Cyber Crime Investigation, Contextual Analysis, Complex System, Collaborative Approaches, Complex Problem Spaces, Systems Analysis, Systems Thinking, Digital Forensic, Mixed mode Crime, 5 Judie Mulholland, Message from the Guest Editor, Special Issue: Phishing and Online Fraud Part II, Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2006, pp 151-2. 6 Eoghan Casey, editor, Handbook of Computer Crime Investigation, (Academic Press, 2002), p 2. 7 David V. Pynadath and Milind Tambe, ‘The Communicative Multiagent Team Decision Problem: Analyzing Teamwork Theories and Models’, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, Volume 16, (2002), pp 389-423. 8 Maria Karyda and Lilian Mitrou, ‘Internet Forensics: Legal and Technical Issues’, in Proceedings of Second International Annual Workshop on Digital Forensics and Incident Analysis, Bart Preneel, Stefanos Gritzalis, Spyros Kokolakis, and Theodore Tryfonas (ed), IEEE Computer Society, 2007, p 4. 9 Noel Cox, ‘Cyber-crime Jurisdiction in New Zealand’, in Bert-Jaap Koops, Susan Brenner and Paul de Hert (eds), Cybercrime Jurisdiction: A Global Survey, (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2006), pp 177- 188. 10 Marjie T. Britz, Computer Forensics and Cyber Crime, (New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 2004), p 5. 11 For three examples of many, see the United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Control of Computer-Related Crime, (UN, New York, 1994), OECD, Recommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems, OECD/GD(92) 10, Paris, 1992, and in the European Union, Council of Europe, Computer Related Crime, Recommendation No. R(89)9 on Computer Related Crime and Final Report of the European Committee on Crime Problems, Strasbourg, 1990. 12 Alastair Irons and Anastasia Konstadopoulou, ‘Professionalism in digital forensics’, Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 4 (2007) 45 – 50 and Stephen Mason, Electronic Evidence: Disclosure, Discovery & Admissibility, (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007), Chapter 3. 13 Judie Mulholland, pp 151-2. 14 Warren G. Kruse II and Jay G. Heiser, Computer Forensics: Incident Response Essentials, (Addison Wesley, 2001) and Eoghan Casey, Digital Evidence and Computer Crime, 2004). 15 Karen Scarfone and Peter Mell, Guide to Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems (IDPS), (Special Publication SP800-94, National Institute of Standards and Technology, February 2007), available on-line at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html. 16 Good Practice Guide for Computer based Electronic Evidence (v4, see also Stephen Mason, general editor, Appendix I for a longer international list of guidance. 17 For example see the NIST Special Publication Series, ‘Guidelines on Cell Phone Forensics’, ‘Guidelines on PDA Forensics’, 2004 and ‘Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response’, 2006. 18 George Mohay, Alison Anderson, Byron Collie, Olivier de Vel and Rodney D. McKemmish, Computer and Intrusion Forensics, (Artech House, 2003), Chapter 3. 19 Judie Mulholland, pp 151-2. 20 Vasilios Katos and Peter M. Bednar, ‘A cyber-crime Investigation Framework’, Computer Standards & Interfaces, Volume 30, Issue 4, (May 2008), pp 223-228. 21 Peter Checkland and Sue Holwell, Information, Systems and Information Systems: making sense of the field (Wiley, 1998). 22 Enid Mumford with Steve Hickey and Holly Matthies, Designing Human Systems, (lulu.com, 2006). 23 Frank Stowell, and D. West, Client-led Design: a systemic approach to information systems definition (McGraw-Hill, 1994). 24 E. McFazdean, ‘Enhancing creative thinking within organisations’, Management Decision, Volume 36, Issue 5, (1998), p 312. 25 Allan M. Collins and M. Ross Quillan, ‘Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, (1969), Volume 8, 240-247. 26 Tony Buzan, and Barry Buzan, The Mind Map Book, (BBC, p 55. 27 Andrew Monk and Steve Howard, ‘Methods & tools: the rich picture: a tool for reasoning about work context’, Interactions, Volume 5, Issue 2, (March/April 1998), pp 21-30. 28 Peter Bednar, and Lynn Day, ‘Systemic combinatory use of Brainstorming, Mind-Maps and Rich Pictures for analysis of complex problem spaces’, Proceedings of ECRM 2009 Malta, 22-23 June: http://www.academicconferences. org/ecrm/ecrm2009/ecrm09- home.htm. 29 Michael C. Jackson, Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, (John Wiley and Sons, pp 186-187.
• in: Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review
• volume: 6
• pages: 214 - 219
• publisher: Pario Communications Limited
• ISSN: 1756-4611
• DOI: 10.14296/deeslr.v6i0.1894
• language: English
• LU publication?: yes
• id: 8a42030b-7e2d-4d8f-b936-afb8d3f64552 (old id 4469603)
• alternative location: http://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/viewFile/1894/1831
• date added to LUP: 2016-04-01 13:49:51
• date last changed: 2018-11-21 20:20:19