Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Policing in the Era of AI and Smart Societies pp 119–138Cite as

IoT and Cloud Forensic Investigation Guidelines

Part of the Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications book series (ASTSA)

Abstract

IoT devices are becoming more prevalent in society, with an expected 21.5 Billion devices connected by 2025 [24], and when an incident occurs in the vicinity of such devices then they should be considered as potential digital evidence. A network of IoT devices is often referred to as a smart environment, or more frequently as a cyber physical system [17]. Is there a need for yet another framework? It could be questioned that: (i) there is no need for such frameworks since the IoT devices are not that important; or, (ii) that there are adequate SOPs and frameworks already in place? This chapter aims to provide answers to these questions.

Keywords

  • Cyber physical systems
  • Digital forensic frameworks
  • Blockchain
  • Cloud
  • IoT

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    N.B. Many cyber-physical systems with wireless sensors are used with livestock.

References

  1. Babun L, Sikder AK, Acar, A, Selcuk Uluagac A (2018) Iotdots: a digital forensics framework for smart environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00745

  2. Bashir I (2018) Mastering blockchain. Packt, 2 edn.

    Google Scholar 

  3. BBC (2020) Ring doorbell’gives Facebook and Google user data. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51281476. Accessed Jan 2020

  4. Beavers JL, Faulks M, Marchang J (2019) Hacking NHS pacemakers: a feasibility study. In: Global security, safety and sustainability the security challenges of the connected world

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beebe NL, Clark JG (2005) A hierarchical, objectives-based framework for the digital investigations process. Digit Invest 2(2),147–167

    Google Scholar 

  6. Camara C, Peris-Lopez P, Tapiador JE (2015) Security and privacy issues in implantable medical devices: a comprehensive survey. J Biomed Inform 55, 272–289

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carrier B, Spafford EH (2004) An event-based digital forensic investigation framework. In: Digital forensic research workshop, pp 11–13

    Google Scholar 

  8. Casey E, Blitz A, Steuart C (2005) Digital evidence and computer crime

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chirgwin R (2020) Finns chilling as DDoS knocks out building control system. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/09/finns_chilling_as_ddos_knocks_out_building_control_system/. Accessed Jan 2020

  10. Clack CD, Bakshi, VA Braine L (2016) Smart contract templates: essential requirements and design options. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.04496

  11. Clack CD, Bakshi VA, Braine L (2016) Smart contract templates: foundations, design landscape and research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.00771

  12. Council of European Union. Council Regulation (EU) no 2016/679. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/LSU/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679. Accessed July 2018

  13. Divya M, Biradar NB (2018) IOTA-next generation block chain. Int J Eng Comput Sci 7(4), 23823–23826

    Google Scholar 

  14. El Ioini N, Pahl C (2018) A review of distributed ledger technologies. In: OTM confederated international conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems”. Springer, pp 277–288

    Google Scholar 

  15. Forensic Science Regulator (FSR). Codes of practice and conduct for forensic science providers and practitioners in the criminal justice system. Technical report, UK Govt, Birmingham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  16. Garrie DB (2014) Digital forensic evidence in the courtroom: understanding content and quality. Northwest J Technol Intellect Prop 12, 1–128

    Google Scholar 

  17. Griffor ER, Greer C, Wollman DA, Burns MJ (2017) Framework for cyber-physical systems: Volume 1, overview. Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibarra J (2019) Digital forensic investigation process model (DFIPM) to IoMT ensuring data privacy. Master’s thesis, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK

    Google Scholar 

  19. ISO17025:2017 (2017). General requirements for the competence of testing and calibrating laboratories. Technical report, International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, CH

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jones KJ, Bejtlich R, Rose CW (2005) Real digital forensics: computer security and incident response. Addison-Wesley Professional

    Google Scholar 

  21. Karabiyik U, Akkaya K (2019) Digital forensics for IoT and WSNS. In: Mission-oriented sensor networks and systems: art and science. Springer, pp 171–207

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kent K, Chevalier S, Grance T, Dang H (2006). Guide to integrating forensic techniques into incident response. Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kirk PL (1953) Crime investigation: Physical evidence and the police laboratory, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lueth KL (2020) State of the IoT 2018: number of IoT devices now at 7b market accelerating. https://iot-analytics.com/state-of-the-iot-update-q1-q2-2018-number-of-iot-devices-now-7b/. Accessed: Jan 2020

  25. Mitchell, I, Cockerton T, Hara S, Evans C. (2018) SMERF: social media, ethics and risk framework. Cyber Criminol

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mitchell I, Hara S, Jahankhani H, Neilson D (2019) Blockchain of custody, BoC. Cyber Secur Pract Guide

    Google Scholar 

  27. Montasari R (2016) The comprehensive digital forensic investigation process model. PhD thesis, University of Derby

    Google Scholar 

  28. Montasari R (2016) A comprehensive digital forensic investigation process model. Int J Electron Secur Digit Forensics 8(4):285–302

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Montasari R, Peltola P (2015) Computer forensic analysis of private browsing modes. In: International conference on global security, safety, and sustainability. Springer, pp 96–109

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mouton F, Venter HS (2011) A prototype for achieving digital forensic readiness on wireless sensor networks. In: IEEE Africon’11. IEEE, pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nagasai A (2020) Classification of IoT devices. https://www.ciscoplatform.com/profiles/blogs/classification-of-iot-devices. Accessed Jan 2020

  32. Oriwoh E, Sant P, Epiphaniou G (2013) Guidelines for Internet of Things deployment approaches—The thing commandments. Procedia Computer Science 21:122–131

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Palmer GL (2002) A roadmap for digital forensics research report from the first digital forensics workshop (technical report dtr-t001-01-final). Air Force Research Lab, Rome Research Site, Utica, pp 1–48

    Google Scholar 

  34. Serguei Popov. The tangle. http://tanglereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IOTA_Whitepaper.pdf. Accessed Jan 2020

  35. Popov S, Moog H, Camargo D, Capossele A, Dimitrov V, Gal A, Greve A, Kusmierz B, Mueller S, Penzkofer A (2020) The coordicide, pp 1–30. Accessed Jan 2020

    Google Scholar 

  36. Uribe F (2018) The classification of Internet of Things (IoT) devices based on their impact on living things. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3350094 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3350094. Accessed Jan 2020

  37. U.S. Department of Justice (2009) Electronic crime scene investigation: an on-the scene reference for first responders. National Institute of Justice, November 2009

    Google Scholar 

  38. Vilandrie A (2020) Survey: Nearly half of U.S. firms using internet of things hit by security breaches. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170601006165/en. Accessed Jan 2020

  39. Watson D, Jones AJ (2013) Digital forensics processing and procedures: meeting the requirements of ISO 17020, ISO 17025, ISO 27001 and best practice requirements, 1st edn. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  40. Williams J (2018) Good practice guide for digital evidence, March 2012. http://library.college.police.uk/docs/acpo/digital-evidence-2012.pdf. Accessed March 2018

  41. Yaga D, Mell P, Roby N, Scarfone K (2018) Blockchain technology overview. Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicting Interests

None identified.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Middlesex University, London, UK

    I. Mitchell & S. Hara

  2. Northumbria University, London, UK

    J. Ibarra Jimenez & Hamid Jahankhani

  3. Huddersfield University, Huddersfield, UK

    Reza Montasari

Authors
  1. I. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Hara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Ibarra Jimenez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hamid Jahankhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Reza Montasari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamid Jahankhani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics, London Campus, Northumbria University, London, UK

    Hamid Jahankhani

  2. Centre of Excellence in Terrorism, Resilience, Intelligence and Organised Crime Research, Sheffield Hallam University, CENTRIC, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK

    Babak Akhgar

  3. Cochrane Associates Limited, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK

    Peter Cochrane

  4. Waterfront Building, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK

    Mohammad Dastbaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mitchell, I., Hara, S., Ibarra Jimenez, J., Jahankhani, H., Montasari, R. (2020). IoT and Cloud Forensic Investigation Guidelines. In: Jahankhani, H., Akhgar, B., Cochrane, P., Dastbaz, M. (eds) Policing in the Era of AI and Smart Societies. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50613-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50613-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50612-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-50613-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

search

Navigation