A Step Towards Internet Anonymity Minimization: Cybercrime Investigation Process Perspective

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 701)

Abstract

Nowadays, people are heading towards an era where the use of personal devices such as Personal Digital Assistant, laptops and wireless networks is increasing. Users operate their personal devices to gain benefit from resources and services offered by the Internet. Sometimes, these Internet activities are susceptible to cybercrimes and their consequences can be as harmful as common physical crime. Cyber-criminals use fake geographical locations to commit frauds and easily get away without eroding their anonymity. The geographical location information should be mandatory to gain access control. Authentication of user’s geographical location (geolocation) can be helpful in enhancing network security and control access to resources. In this paper, IP address is used to authenticate user’s graphical location and some of its extended properties which can be used as a weapon to avoid users from entering fake geographical locations while using Internet services, so as to improve safety and decreasing cybercrimes. The proposed model takes proactive investigations to uncover cybercrimes and cyber-criminals who are actively engaged in cybercrime.

Keywords

Cybercrimes Internet Anonymity Cyber investigation Geolocation IP address 

References

  1. 1.
    Sitaraman, A., Dos Santos, M.A., Lou, S., Zhang, S., Sthothra Bhasham, S.K.: Integrated IP address management. U.S. Patent 6,427,170, issued 30 July 2002Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schmidt, G.T.: INS/GPS technology trends. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lexington, MA (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kao, D.-Y., Wang, S.-J.: The IP address and time in cyber-crime investigation. Polic.: Int. J. Police Strateg. Manag. 32(2), 194–208 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denning, D.E., MacDoran, P.F.: Location-based authentication: grounding cyberspace for better security. Comput. Fraud Secur. 1996(2), 12–16 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Padmanabhan, V.N., Subramanian, L.: Determining the geographic location of Internet hosts. In: SIGMETRICS/Performance, pp. 324–325 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thorvaldsen, Ø.E.: Geographical location of internet hosts using a multi-agent system. Master’s thesis, Institutt for telematikk (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pilli, E.S., Joshi, R.C., Niyogi, R.: Network forensic frameworks: survey and research challenges. Digit. Investig. 7(1), 14–27 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zainudin, N.M., Merabti, M., Llewellyn-Jones, D.: A digital forensic investigation model for online social networking. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on the Convergence of Telecommunications, Networking and Broadcasting, Liverpool, pp. 21–22 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poonia, A.S.: Analysis of existing models and proposed cyber crime investigation model. Analysis 10(11), 77–81 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Satti, R.S., Jafari, F.: Reviewing existing forensic models to propose a cyber forensic investigation process model for higher educational institutes. Int. J. Comput. Netw. Inf. Secur. 7(5), 16 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shweta Sankhwar
    • 1
  • Dhirendra Pandey
    • 1
  • R. A. Khan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyBabasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar UniversityLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations