DigitalForensics 2012: Advances in Digital Forensics VIII pp 201-212 | Cite as

Key Terms for Service Level Agreements to Support Cloud Forensics

  • Keyun Ruan
  • Joshua James
  • Joe Carthy
  • Tahar Kechadi
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 383)

Abstract

As cloud adoption grows, the importance of preparing for forensic investigations in cloud environments also grows. A recent survey of digital forensic professionals identified that missing terms and conditions regarding forensic activities in service level agreements between cloud providers and cloud consumers is a significant challenge for cloud forensics. This paper addresses the challenge by specifying standard terms for service level agreements that support cloud forensics.

Keywords

Cloud forensics service level agreements 
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. 1.
    Amazon, Amazon Web Services: Overview of Security Processes, Seattle, Washington (aws.amazon.com/articles/1697), 2008.
  2. 2.
    Association of Chief Police Officers, Good Practice Guide for Computer-Based Electronic Evidence, London, United Kingdom (www.7safe.com/electronic_evidence/ACPO_guidelines_computer_evidence.pdf), 2008.
  3. 3.
    N. Beebe, Digital forensic research: The good, the bad and the unaddressed, in Advances in Digital Forensics V, G. Peterson and S. Shenoi (Eds.), Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 17–36, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Gammage, D. Plummer, R. Valdes, K. McGee, K. Potter, S. Tan, D. Aron, R. Hunter, J. Heiser, B. Prentice, G. Alvarez, M. Basso, L. Fiering and K. Dulaney, Gartner’s Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users, 2011 and Beyond: IT’s Growing Transparency, Document ID Number G00208367, Gartner, Stamford, Connecticut, 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Mell and T. Grance, The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing, Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-145, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Mogull, Cloud Data Security: Archive and Delete (Rough Cut), Securosis, Phoenix, Arizona (securosis.com/blog/cloud-data-security-archive-and-delete-rough-cut), 2011.
  7. 7.
    T. Osborne, Building an Incident Response Program to Suit Your Business, InfoSec Reading Room, SANS Institute, Bethesda, Maryland (www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/incident/building-incident-response-program-suit-business_627), 2001.
  8. 8.
    T. Ristenpart, E. Tromer, H. Shacham and S. Savage, Hey you, get off of my cloud: Exploring information leakage in third-party compute clouds, Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 199–212, 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Ruan, I. Baggili, J. Carthy and T. Kechadi, Survey on cloud forensics and critical criteria for cloud forensic capability: A preliminary analysis, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Ruan, J. Carthy, M. Kechadi and M. Crosbie, Cloud forensics, in Advances in Digital Forensics VII, G. Peterson and S. Shenoi (Eds.), Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 35–46, 2011. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keyun Ruan
    • 1
  • Joshua James
    • 2
  • Joe Carthy
    • 1
  • Tahar Kechadi
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and InformaticsUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.Center for Cybersecurity and Cyber Crime InvestigationUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations