Assessing the Legal Risks in Network Forensic Probing

  • Michael Losavio
  • Olfa Nasraoui
  • Vincent Thacker
  • Jeff Marean
  • Nick Miles
  • Roman Yampolskiy
  • Ibrahim Imam
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 306)


This paper presents a framework for identifying the legal risks associated with performing network forensics on public networks. The framework is discussed in the context of the Gnutella P2P network protocol for which the legal issues related to authorized access have not yet been addressed.


Network forensics legal issues authorized access Gnutella protocol 


  1. 1.
    Associated Press, Singapore teen faces 3 years’ jail for tapping into another’s wireless Internet, International Herald Tribune, November 10, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Bierlein, Policing the wireless world: Access liability in the open Wi-Fi era, Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 67(5), pp. 1123–1186, 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Caloyannides, Privacy Protection and Computer Forensics, Artech House, Norwood, Massachusetts, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clip2 Distributed Search Services, The Gnutella Protocol Specification v0.4 (Document Revision 1.2) ( /gnutella_protocol_0.4.pdf), 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, Strasbourg, France (, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Godwin, Some “property” problems in a computer crime prosecution, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, California (, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Hale, Wi-Fi liability: Potential legal risks in accessing and operating wireless Internet, Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, vol. 21, pp. 543–559, 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Kerr, Cybercrime’s scope: Interpreting “access” and “authorization” in computer misuse statutes, NYU Law Review, vol. 78(5), pp. 1596–1668, 2003.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Kwok, P2P searching trends: 2002-2004, Information Processing and Management, vol. 42(1), pp. 237–247, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Leary, Wi-Fi cloaks a new breed of intruder, St. Petersburg Times, July 4, 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Losavio, The law of possession of digital objects: Dominion and control issues for digital forensic investigations and prosecutions, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering, pp. 177–183, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Madison, Rights of access and the shape of the Internet, Boston College Law Review, pp. 433–507, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Nasraoui, D. Keeling, A. Elmaghraby, G. Higgins and M. Losavio, Node-based probing and monitoring to investigate the use of peer-to-peer technologies for the distribution of contraband material, Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering, pp. 135–140, 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Ripeanu, A. Iamnitchi and I. Foster, Mapping the Gnutella network, IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 6(1), pp. 50–57, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Schjolberg, The legal framework – Unauthorized access to computer systems, Penal legislation in 44 countries, Moss District Court, Moss, Norway (, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Sharma, L. Nguyen and D. Jia, IR-Wire: A research tool for P2P information retrieval, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Open Source Information Retrieval, pp. 33–38, 2006.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Shim, Wi-Fi arrest highlights security dangers, ZDNet News, November 28, 2003.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Simon, Note: The tangled web we weave – The Internet and standing under the Fourth Amendment, Nova Law Review, vol. 21, pp. 941–959, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Stanley, Whose hands are “unclean?” – SCO, IBM’s “agents” and the CFAA, Groklaw ( =20041217091956894), December 17, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Supreme Court of Kansas, State of Kansas v. Allen, Pacific Reporter (Second Series), vol. 917, pp. 848–854, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    U.S. Court of Appeals (First Circuit), EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp., Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 318, pp. 58–64, 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), United States v. Morris, Federal Reporter (Second Series), vol. 928, pp. 504–512, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    U.S. Court of Appeals (Tenth Circuit), United States v. Simpson, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 94, pp. 1373–1382, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    U.S. District Court (Northern District of Iowa, Western Division), America Online, Inc. v. National Health Care Discount, Inc., Federal Supplementer (Second Series), vol. 121, pp. 1255–1280, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    U.S. Government, Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, United States Code Annotated, Washington, DC, pp. 445–453, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Losavio
  • Olfa Nasraoui
  • Vincent Thacker
  • Jeff Marean
  • Nick Miles
  • Roman Yampolskiy
  • Ibrahim Imam

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations