Do private and portable web browsers leave incriminating evidence ...

Post on 12-Jan-2017

215 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

Transcript

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

RESEARCH Open Access

Do private and portable web browsers leaveincriminating evidence a forensic analysis ofresidual artifacts from private and portable webbrowsing sessionsDonny J Ohana and Narasimha Shashidhar

Abstract

The Internet is an essential tool for everyday tasks Aside from common use the option to browse the Internetprivately is a desirable attribute However this can create a problem when private Internet sessions become hiddenfrom computer forensic investigators in need of evidence Our primary focus in this research is to discover residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions In addition the artifacts must contain more than just filefragments and enough to establish an affirmative link between user and session Certain aspects of this topic havetriggered many questions but there have never been enough authoritative answers to follow As a result wepropose a new methodology for analyzing private and portable web browsing artifacts Our research will serveto be a significant resource for law enforcement computer forensic investigators and the digital forensicsresearch community

Keywords Private browsing Portable web browsers Internet forensics Portable browsing Web browser artifactsRAM analysis

1 IntroductionIn the last 20 years the Internet has become drasticallyessential for everyday tasks associated with stationaryand mobile computer devices Aside from commonInternet usage people desire the option to browse theInternet while keeping their user information private As aresult new web browsing features were slowly developedfor all major web browsers asserting the option of lsquoprivatebrowsingrsquo This method works by either removinginformation at the end of a private session or by notwriting the data at all Other private browser featuresmay include concealing additional information suchas cookie discoverability from websitesAccording to one study [1] there are two private browsing

objectives The first objective is to allow users to browse theInternet without leaving any trace The second is to allowusers to browse the Internet while limiting identity disco-verability to websites While both of these goals are

Correspondence djo007shsueduDepartment of Computer Science Sam Houston State University HuntsvilleTX 77340 USA

copy 2013 Ohana and Shashidhar licensee SpringCommons Attribution License (httpcreativecoreproduction in any medium provided the orig

important our research will focus on discovering informa-tion from local storage devices since the majority of com-puter investigations involve search and seizure of localmachines One alternative to using private browsing modesis to surf the Internet using a portable web browser such asone stored on a Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash driveTherefore web browsing sessions are more likely to bestored on the portable storage device itself instead of thecomputer or host machinePrivate and portable web browsing artifacts such as

usernames electronic communication browsing historyimages and videos may contain significant evidence toan examiner Prior research in this area is very limitedReferring back to one of the main studies on privatebrowsing modes [1] this research lacks an in-depth analysisof deleted and volatile information pertaining to privatebrowsing sessions In another study focused on portableweb browsers [2] many statements were made without thebasis of true experimental findings Furthermore there arevirtually no published studies on residual artifacts fromcurrent portable web browsers existing on host machines

er This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creativemmonsorglicensesby20) which permits unrestricted use distribution andinal work is properly cited

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 2 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

In the past similar studies have been conducted on theSanDisk U3 flash drive and its portable applications SinceU3-USB devices had a pre-installed read-only partition itwas challenging for forensic investigators to discoverelectronic evidence In the latter year of 2009 SanDiskbegan phasing out support for U3 Technology and ithas been discontinued because of many irresolvableissues [3]Private and portable web browsing artifacts can be

extremely valuable Prior research either lacks significantfindings or does not provide sufficient answers We planto overcome these shortcomings by analyzing bothallocated and unallocated space on entire disks whilemeasuring our results against multiple web browsersFurthermore we plan to analyze volatile data that may beavailable in an incident responseThis paper is organized as follows Section 2 provides

a list of background terms Section 3 describes priorand related work in private browsing modes and portableweb browsers Section 4 discusses the four major browsersand their privacy capabilities Section 5 discusses severaldifferent portable web browsers Section 6 details theimplementation and experiments Sections 7 and 8 concludethe paper with some open questions future work anddiscussion

2 Background definitionsIn this section we provide a list of background termsand definitions (Table 1) to assist readers with some ofthe terminology used in this research

Table 1 Terms and definitions

Terminology Definition

Residual artifacts Remaining data such as files images d

Affirmative link Judicially devised standard to aid Cour

ISO image A computer file that is an exact copy o

Virtual machine Simulation of a real machine

Prefetch files (Windows) Each time an application is run on a Wis created to speed boot time

$I30$MFT New Technology File System (NTFS) In

Browser cache Temporary Internet files (storage) for in

RAM Working memory that is volatile

Pagefile (paging) Virtual memory designated on disk

Memdump Action of dumping volatile memory in

Drive free space Referencing the unallocated space on

Slack spacefile slack Unused space in a disk cluster (area be

System volume information Volume shadow copy (snapshots) for s

FTK orphan directory Contains files that no longer have a pa

Data carving There are many different types of datamost data carvers extract content by lo

3 Related work31 Private browsingIn the study [1] on private browsing modes in modernbrowsers researchers presented a list of inconsistenciesbetween private browsing goals and browser implementa-tions They also defined private browsing modes to havetwo primary goals privacy against the web and privacyagainst local machines Meaning the users identity shouldnot be identified over the Internet (web) and the usersactivity should not be recorded on the machine (local)One example is that Mozilla Firefox and Google Chromeboth take steps to remain private against websitesduring private mode Apple Safari on the other handtakes measures to only protect against local machinesbut through our research we will exploit some of thevulnerability to that methodThe researchers found that all the web browsers (tested)

failed in one way or another when analyzing policies Thisis mainly because of complications introduced by browserplug-ins and extensions It was also shown that extensionscan weaken private browsing modes and therefore activitiescan still be recorded One example is that Google Chromedisables all extensions during private browsing mode andFirefox does not With regard to inconsistencies within asingle browser the researchers found that cookies set inpublic mode in Firefox 36 are not available to the webwhen browsing privately however SSL certificates andpasswords areUltimately this study establishes a good foundation for

private browsing analysis but lacks significant findingsThe areas primarily studied were policy inconsistencies

ocuments and web content

ts in determining sufficiency of evidence between subject and offense

f an existing file CD DVD etc

indows machine a Prefetch file referencing the loaded application

dex AttributeMaster File Table

creasing speed

to a file to view contents

disk

tween end of file and end of disk cluster)

ystem restorebackup

rent and the parent folder is overwritten (using $MFT as a reference)

carving techniques (block-based statistical semantic etc) but essentiallyoking for file headersfooters and then lsquocarvingrsquo data blocks in between

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 3 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

browser extension weaknesses private browsing usagewebsite user discoverability and Firefox vulnerabilitiesVarious files and folders which were privately modifiedand accessed are pointed out by the researchers but theydo retrieve specific data that is deleted after a privatesession is terminated Also volatile memory artifacts wereignored because they wanted to show discoverability afterthe memory was cleared When a small experiment wasconducted running a memory leaking program certainartifacts from private browsing sessions were discoveredin the memory The reason for this was explainedthat operating systems often cache DNS resolutionsand therefore by analyzing the cache and TTL valuesan investigator can learn if and when the user visiteda particular site In addition the Operating System canswap memory pages leaving further traces of user activityIn contrast to this research we plan to examine all

four major web browsers utilizing a different acquisitionmethod Our goal is to extract as much data as possibleincluding deleted and volatile data to obtain sufficientinformation within the artifacts retrieved One researcharticle [4] argues that browser vendors deliver exactlywhat they claim but consumers have limited knowledge asto what private browsing modes can actually do Comparingthis article to the first study [1] proves otherwise There areclearly private policy inconsistencies within the four majorbrowsers according to the data

32 Portable web browsingOne study on portable web browsers [2] explained thatportable web browsing artifacts are primarily storedwhere the installation folder is located (removable disk)Residual artifacts such as USB identifiers and portableprograms can be discovered by analyzing the WindowsRegistry and Windows Prefetch files Furthermorethey state that if the removable disk is not accessibleto the investigator it is impossible to trace any furtherinformation In regard to portable software discoverabilitythe researchers stated that it was difficult to determineportable web browser usage on a host machine The majorityof these statements were made without the basis ofany true experimental findings Therefore every oneof these statements will be fully tested in our researchto determine authoritative answers We plan to recoversignificant residual artifacts located on host machinestesting several different portable web browsers Eventhough USB identifiers are important to obtain it iseven more important to establish an affirmative linkbetween user and session

33 Flash driveIn comparison to current portable software Sandisk andMicrosoft worked together many years ago on a projectcalled U3 Technology [5] Essentially the idea was to

allow consumers to carry a portable disk containingpersonalized files and web browsers U3 flash driveswere pre-installed with a U3 Launchpad similar to anOS start menu with various programs installed Thereare two partitions to the U3 flash drive structure one is amass storage device and the other is a virtual CD-ROMThe virtual partition was actually an ISO image which waswhy information was read but not written to the diskAccording to one study [6] U3 devices created a folder onhost machines and recorded user activity Once the diskwas ejected a cleanup program was executed and automat-ically removed all user activity from that system Byanalyzing the Windows Prefetch files researchers were ableto identify which programs were run from the U3 deviceIn another study on battling U3 anti-forensics [7] U3

identifiers were discovered as well by analyzing theWindows Registry and Prefetch directory The majority oftraces were located within slack space and free space ofthe hard drive For this reason our research experimentswill be conducted using separate physical hard drives toincorporate the possibility of discovering data within theseareas Even though sufficient evidence was obtained tosupport which U3 programs were launched it was stillextremely difficult for researchers to identify othersignificant artifacts We will probably face the samebarriers in our research Overall the U3 portable diskprovided a sense of privacy and personalization to usersOver time there had been numerous complaints aboutU3 devices such as potential incompatibility and malware-like behavior SanDisk began phasing out support for U3Technology in late 2009 [3] and the U3 disk has beendiscontinued

4 Major browsers and private browsingIn this section we discuss four major web browsers andtheir private browsing implementations

41 Microsoft Internet ExplorerMicrosoft Internet Explorer (IE) is one of the mostcommonly used web browsers on Windows machinesA list of areas where most IE web browsing artifactsare located is as follows

Cookies (Indexdat) History (Indexdat) Registry (typed URLs search queries auto-complete

protected storage) NTUSERdat Temporary Internet Files and Indexdat Entries Downloads

IE also offers users a private browsing feature calledInPrivate Browsing According to Microsoft [8] InPrivateBrowsing enables users to surf the Internet without leaving

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 4 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

a trace on their computer However while using InPrivateBrowsing some information such as cookies and tempor-ary files are temporarily stored so that web pages will workcorrectly Once the browsing session is ended all of thatdata is discarded Table 2 shows a list of areas affectedby InPrivate Browsing and is available to the publicon Microsofts webpage In regard to web browserextensions IE disables all toolbars and extensionsduring InPrivate Browsing sessions to ensure betterprivacy IE also does not clear toolbars and extensionsafter a private session is ended

42 Google chromeGoogle Chrome is another very popular web browserthat can be found on both Windows and Mac operatingsystems A list of common areas where Chrome webbrowsing artifacts can be located is as follows

JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) structure - textbased open standard design for human readable data

Downloads Bookmarks Web data Keyword search terms Keywords URL database History index (YYY-MM) Current and last sessions Top sites database Media cache

Chrome also offers something called Incognito modefor users to browse the Internet in a private settingAccording to Google [9] Incognito mode does notrecord any browsing or download histories and allcreated cookies will be removed when exiting a sessioncompletely Additionally Google states that if users are

Table 2 Microsoft IE InPrivate browsing features

Data How InPrivate browsing affects data

Cookies Contained in working memory butcleared after session

Temporary internet files Stored on disk but deleted aftersession

Webpage history Not stored

Form data and passwords Not stored

Anti-phishing cache Temporary information is encryptedand stored

Address bar and auto-complete

Not stored

Automatic cache restore Restore is successful only if tab crashesand not entire session

Document object modelstorage

Discarded after session

working in Chrome OS surfing the Internet underguest browsing essentially does the same thing Oncethe guest session is closed all browsing information iscompletely erased

43 Mozilla FirefoxMozilla Firefox is another popular web browser that canbe found on multiple platforms Web browsers such asChrome and Firefox can also be found on mobile devicessuch as Androids iPads etc A list of common areas whereFirefox web browsing artifacts can be located is as follows

Sqlite database structure Prefsjs (user preferences) Signonstxt (encrypted data for website

authentication) Formhistorysqlite Cookiessqlite Firefox cache Placessqlite (bookmarks and history) Downloadssqlite

Just like all other major web browsers Firefox offers adiscreet browsing mode called Private Browsing Accordingto Mozilla [10] Private Browsing mode allows users to surfthe Internet without saving any information about visitedsites or pages Table 3 shows a list of areas affected byPrivate Browsing and is available to the public on Mozillaswebpage Mozilla makes it clear that private browsingmodes do not make users anonymous from web sitesISPs and networks In other words Private Browsing ismerely affected in the Application Layer recognized in theOS Aside from other privacy features there is an optionto enable the Do-Not-Track feature in Firefox whichrequests that websites do not track user browsingbehavior This request is honored voluntarily and AppleSafari offers the same In the experimental phase of our

Table 3 Mozilla private browsing features

Data How private browsing affects data

Visited pages Will not be added in History menuLibrary history or other bar list

Form and search bar entries Nothing entered will be saved for FormAuto-complete

Passwords No new passwords will be saved

Download list entries No downloaded files will be listed underDownloads

Cookies Does not save

Cached web content Not saved

Flash cookies Latest version of Flash must be used toprevent saving

Offline web content anduser data

Not saved

Figure 1 PortableApps launchpadFigure 2 Hard drive setup with labels

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 5 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

research these types of features will be optimized for fullprivacy

44 Apple safariThe Apple Safari web browser is primarily used onMaciOS operating systems but is also available forWindows A list of common areas where Safari webbrowsing artifacts can be located is as follows

plist (Propert List) structure Cookiesplist Bookmarksplist Historyplist WebpageIconsdb Keychainsplist Downloadsplist

Apples latest version of the Safari web browser forWindows is Safari 517 [11] When Safari launched 60they did not update the Windows versions Most peoplehave assumed that Apple is moving away from Windowscompatibility According to Apple Private Browsing modeensures that web pages are not added to the history listcookie changes are discarded searches are not added to

the search fields and websites cannot modify informationstored on the computer

5 Portable softwareIn this section we discuss several major web browsersthat are made available in portable formats and wereused for this research

51 Portable application and web browsersTo allow for certain portable browsers to work a freeprogram called PortableApps [12] was used for thisresearch PortableApps is similar to the previouslymentioned U3 Launchpad in that it allows you totake portable applications with you as you go It isbased on an open source platform and will work withalmost any portable storage device Figure 1 showshow the launchpad is structured In our study theapplication was installed on a USB flash drive Threeportable web browsers were selected through PortableAppsMozilla Firefox Portable 1801 [13] Google ChromePortable 240131252 [14] and Opera Portable 1212[15] The reason Apple Safari Portable was not selectedbecause it was not in fact portable The most updatedversion located was not a standalone executable programand it had to be installed onto the machine According

Figure 3 DaemonFS monitoring example

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 6 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

to Mozilla the Portable Edition leaves no personalinformation behind on the machine it runs on [13]All the portable browsers were essentially designedfor users to carry customized browsers without leavingtraces on machines That is why artifacts such as webbrowsing history passwords and auto-fill forms are storedwhere the portable browser installation folder is locatedPrivacy modes can also be enabled to help block flashcookies and other artifacts from storing within theinstallation folder

6 Implementations and experimentsIn this section we provide a brief overview of privateand portable web browsing sessions that will be analyzedusing computer forensics

61 Tools and setupThe following tools were used for the assessmentsacquisitions examinations and analysis

Table 4 Browser analysis during normal browsing sessions

Browser Primary changes

Internet explorer 80 Temp File Directory files (Concreated modified and delete

Google chrome 230127195 Directory ChromeUser DataDefaultSession Storage) files

Firefox 1701 Directory FirefoxProfiles (Cacmodified and deleted

Safari 517 Directory AppleComputerSafiles are created modified an

Hardware

1- Desktop (PC - forensic workstation - 4-GB RAM) 1- Laptop (PC - forensic workstation - 6-GB RAM) 8ndash160 GB SATA Hard Drives (one dedicated drive

for lab) 1- USB Flash Drive (8 GB) 1- USB External Drive (1 TB WD Passport) 1- SATA to USB Adapter 1- Tableau USB Write Blocker (IDESATA) Antistatic Bags and Antistatic Wrist Strap

Software

Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (64) Internet Explorer Firefox Safari Chrome VMware - virtualization software DaemonFS - file integrity monitoring program Disk Wipe - to replace data on disk with zeros Nirsoft Internet Tools - history cache and

cookie viewers

tentIE HistoryIE5 Cookies Recovery Custom Destinations Indexdat) ared

(Safe Browsing Whitelist Default Cache Current Session DefaultHistoryare created modified and deleted

he jumpListCache etc) and Win CustomDestinations files are created

fari (Cache History Webpage Previews Cookies WebpageIconsdb)d deleted

Table 5 Browser analysis during private browsing sessions

Private browser Noticeable change

IE InPrivate Browsing Everything gets deleted when exiting the browser and the entire session is terminated

Google Chrome Incognito Mode Safe Browsing databases Cookies and History are modified no changes during session but thechrome_shutdown_mstxt is replaced with a new timestamp when session ends

Firefox Private Browsing Safe Browsing database gets modified nothing appears to be written while surfing but whensession ends some FirefoxProfile files are modified

Safari Private Browsing Only NTuserdat appears to be modified

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 7 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

Live View - Java based tool to convert dd to vmdk PortableApps - portable application Launchpad Firefox Portable Chrome Portable Opera Portable FTK Imager - used to create forensic images FTK Imager Lite - portable version AccessData FTK version 32 (Licensed) - used to

analyze forensic images and organize information

The key to our research was for us to conduct a stan-dardized test across multiple controlled environmentsTherefore all the experiments were handled in a forensic-ally sound manner as if we were handling real evidencePhotographs were taken forensic images were createdprocedures were properly documented and evidence wassafely preservedWe began by taking every hard drive and removing

residual data using Disk Wipe [16] Each disk wasconnected to a secondary forensic workstation (laptop)through a SATA to USB Adapter The Disk Wipe toolprovides several different wiping options and writes overdata with zeros The first disk was tested by examining itforensically after wiping it with only one pass Sincethere was some residual data that was found a DoDAlgorithm was selected next to wipe the disk using threepasses this method proved to be more efficient Afterevery disk was successfully wiped each one was installedwith Windows 7 Professional - 64 bits The 64-bitversion was used so that more random-access memory(RAM) could later be testedNext each disk was installed with only one specific

Internet browser pre-loaded from an external hard driveexcept for the portable applications The web browsersinstalled were Microsoft Internet Explorer Mozilla FirefoxApple Safari and Google Chrome Each browser wasconfigured to launch automatically into private browsing

Table 6 Browser analysis using portable web browsers

Portable browser Host machine activity

Opera portable Temp files appear to be created on disk a

Firefox portable MozillaRoaming directory was modified

Google chrome portable Folder called GoogleChromePortable hadand Portable Chrome Cache

Safari portable Setup files are portable but must be insta

mode except for Safari which had to be done manually Itis important to note since prior research [1] showedbrowser plug-ins and extensions to cause weakness toprivate browsing sessions none were installed It is alsoimportant to note that everything was pre-configuredbefore connecting to the Internet Figure 2 shows the harddrives being configured and labeled

62 Preliminary analysisWhile the disks were being properly developed a baselinewas established using a laptop with VMware and a fileintegrity monitoring program called DaemonFS [17] Thisassisted with having a general idea for which areas weremodified and accessed during normal private andportable web browsing sessions Once DaemonFS waslaunched it was set to monitor all activity within thelocal hard drive (root) After the logical parameterwas set each web browser was individually launchedand tested using a series of standardized steps Figure 3shows how the log is generated during activity Thesesteps included article searches image searches videosearches email account logins bank account logins andonline purchase attempts See Tables 4 5 and 6 for results

63 Private ate browsing experimentsAuthor1 has a background in law enforcement and hasexperience analyzing digital media for a vast array ofcrimes The Internet activities used for these experimentswere adapted from an abundance of information to includepast experience and knowledge It is important to note thatthese principles can still be applied to all aspects ofInternet forensics regardless of whether or not the scoperelates to a crime These types of browsing sessions canvery well be conducted without any criminal intent Theoverall purpose of digital forensics is to help establish and

nd then are deleted when session ends

and a few temp files under Local AppData were createddeleted

files created modified and deleted including Sys32WinevtLogs

lled on system (not standaloneexe) therefore will not be used for testing

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 8 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

articulate an affirmative link between A (artifact) and B(person place or thing) By collecting and analyzingenough data evidentiary content can be producedTo begin the main experiments each disk was separately

utilized as a single primary drive Every step was manuallyrecorded with timestamps for future reference points Forthe first four disks only private browsing sessions weretested using the installed web browsers For the purpose ofthese experiments a lsquobrowsing sessionrsquo will refer to allactivity conducted on one specific web browser Once aprivate browsing session was launched the same series ofsteps were performed for each browser Table 7 shows thedetails of these standardized sessionsAfter each browsing session was complete the web

browser process tree was terminated (verified) and theRAM was dumped into a file using FTK Imager Lite(installed on USB) Not only was the memory dumpedbut Registry files were obtained the pagefilesys wasextracted and an ad1 image file of the RAM wascreated as well The location of the RAM dump was storedon the target machines Desktop due to reasons that willlater be explained This would probably not be preferred ina real setting unless it was absolutely necessary In anyevent it is always important to document the footprintsleft behind on a live environment Initially the data wasextracted to an external hard drive The machine was thenunplugged from the back and the disk was carefullyremoved As noted a few extra things were done topreserve sound results The working memory wasdumped before and after every disk session to ensurethat residual data was not left over in the RAM fromthe session before In addition several Internet toolsfrom Nirsoft [18] such as cache viewer history viewerand cookie viewer were executed after each browsingsession was terminated and yielded negative resultsMeaning nothing could be discovered using these toolsafter private browsing sessions were used

Table 7 Internet sessions used for experiments

Website Standardized steps

Google Search for various images sites and forums targeteand images

Yahoo Search for various sites and forums targeted for crim

YouTube Search for how-to videos on different types hacking (

Gmail Send email with attachments

Hotmail Send email with attachments

Yahoo Mail Send email with attachments

SHSU Mail Send email with attachments

Online Banking Log into several accounts (stores cookies and certifi

Ammunition-to-Go Attempt to purchase large amounts (2000+) of am

Online Firearms Store Search for high capacity magazines and various we

Craigslist Search for different types of items for sale that mig

64 Portable browsing experimentThe next three disks were used in conjunction withportable web browsers running from a USB flash driveThe flash drive was installed with a program calledPortableApps Essentially PortableApps allows you torun different programs from a flash drive similar toan OS Start menu After setting up the Launchpad threeportable web browsers were installed on the flash driveMozilla Firefox Portable Google Chrome Portable andOpera Portable Again each hard disk was separately usedas a primary hard drive but this time without any otherweb browsers installed Each portable web browser wasindividually launched while performing the same series ofstandardized steps as the first four disks (Table 7)Whenever a disk was complete it was carefully placed intoan antistatic bag and into a cool dry place for storage Inaddition an antistatic wrist band was used while handlingall internal electronic components

65 Forensic acquisition and analysisThe last hard disk was developed with Windows 7 andFTK 32 to make it a dedicated computer forensic worksta-tion AccessDatas Forensic Toolkit (FTK) [19] is a court ac-cepted program used for examining computers and mobiledevices at the forensic level Each disk was individuallyconnected to the Desktop using a hardware-based writeblocker (Tableau) to protect any data from being altered bythe computer Digital evidence preservation is the most im-portant factor next to chain of custody when it comes toforensic integrity Using FTK Imager a bit stream image ofeach evidence disk was created as a compressed E01 imagefile and was verified by several different hashes Each imagetook anywhere from 3 to 5 h to complete Next individualimages were forensically examined analyzed and classifiedby FTK 32 One disk image took up to 72 h to process andthe disks with the installed browsers took the longest

d for criminal activity click on top five links savedownload different files

inal activity click on top five links savedownload available files

social media bank accounts and WiFi connections) click on links to open

cates)

munition (various high powered rounds) by searching and adding to cart

apons

ht be flagged as stolen

Table 8 Private web browsing artifacts

Artifacts Discovered Target locations

Microsoft internet explorer80 (InPrivate browsing)

Private browsingindicator

Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo - prior to URL history)$I30 (hellipContentIE5- lsquoinprivate [1]rsquo- prior to list of jpegs) Pagefile

Browsing history Y Memdump Free space File slack (Temporary Internet Folder RoaminghellipCustomDestinations) SysVol Info $LogFile $J AppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

Usernamesemailaccounts

Y Memdump Freespace Temporary Internet Folder UserAppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

Images Y Memdump (partial photos) Free space (full content) File slack (full content)

Videos N NA

Google chrome 230127195(Incognito)

Incognitoindicators

Y Memdump ChromehellipInstallerchrome7z amp chromedll (timestamp matches)$I30 (safebrowsing timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser Datachrome_shutdown_mstxt (always updates with timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultExtension Statelog (declarative_rulesincognitodeclaritiveWebRequest- timestamp matches session start) ~SysVol Information (new incognitowindow with timestamps) AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (new incognito window with timestamps) ChromeUserDataSafebrowsingcookiesdb (modified timestamp)

Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Info (matching timestamps) Pagefilesys (downloaded file)

Usernamesemailaccounts

N NA

Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

Videos N NA

Mozilla Firefox 1701(Private browsing)

Private browsingindicators

Y Memdump (browsing mode) SysVolume Information (Enter Private Browsingand Windowrsquos User listed below- file timestamp accurate)

Browsing history Y Memdump Free space- AppDatahellipTemp WinPrefetch (rtf temp file downloaddiscovered) AppDatahellipFirefoxProfiles (blacklistxml- matching timestamps)FirefoxProfiles (file timestamps update)

Usernamesemailaccounts

N NA

Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

Videos N NA

Apple Safari 517(Private browsing)

Private browsingindicators

Y Memdump ~SysVol Information (comappleSafariPrivateBrowsing timestamp)

Browsing history Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (URL History) AppDataLocalAppleCompSafariWebpageIconsdbgt gt tables AppDataLocalAppleCompSafari (databasestimestamp updates) AppDatahellipAppleCompSafari amp Preferences(several plist timestamp updates) Pagefile (URLs and modified timestamps update)

Usernamesemailaccounts

N NA

Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

Videos N NA

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 9 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

Aside from the default processing options in FTKadditional refinements were selected to carve differenttypes of data and parse complex information Once FTKfinished processing the evidence files numerous hourswere spent sifting through the data We found that itwas also beneficial to use a program called Live View[20] to have a better understanding of the artifactsfound Live View is an open source program that canconvert a raw image to a virtual disk The disk must bebooted into safe mode for the virtual machine to workcorrectly without having to activate Windows By usingtwo screens simultaneously one with a live virtual

environment and the other with the forensic image inFTK it allowed us to fully grasp and understand theconnections See Tables 8 and 9 for complete results

66 Results analysisPrivate browsing modes and portable web browsers doin fact leave incriminating evidence but it depends onthe browser Some web browsers left enough informationto establish an affirmative link and some did not Out ofthe four major web browsers Internet Explorer providedthe most residual artifacts but not where commonartifacts are typically sought This was fairly consistent

Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

Google chromeportable - 240131252

Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

Usernamesemailaccounts

Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

Videos N NA

Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

Usernamesemailaccounts

N NA

Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

Videos N NA

Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

Usernamesemailaccounts

Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

Videos N NA

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

view)

Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

7 Convenient online submission

7 Rigorous peer review

7 Immediate publication on acceptance

7 Open access articles freely available online

7 High visibility within the fi eld

7 Retaining the copyright to your article

Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

  • Abstract
  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Background definitions
  • 3 Related work
    • 31 Private browsing
    • 32 Portable web browsing
    • 33 Flash drive
      • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
        • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
        • 42 Google chrome
        • 43 Mozilla Firefox
        • 44 Apple safari
          • 5 Portable software
            • 51 Portable application and web browsers
              • 6 Implementations and experiments
                • 61 Tools and setup
                  • Hardware
                  • Software
                    • 62 Preliminary analysis
                    • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                    • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                    • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                    • 66 Results analysis
                    • 67 Additional forensic results
                      • 7 Future work
                      • 8 Conclusion
                      • Competing interests
                      • References

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 2 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    In the past similar studies have been conducted on theSanDisk U3 flash drive and its portable applications SinceU3-USB devices had a pre-installed read-only partition itwas challenging for forensic investigators to discoverelectronic evidence In the latter year of 2009 SanDiskbegan phasing out support for U3 Technology and ithas been discontinued because of many irresolvableissues [3]Private and portable web browsing artifacts can be

    extremely valuable Prior research either lacks significantfindings or does not provide sufficient answers We planto overcome these shortcomings by analyzing bothallocated and unallocated space on entire disks whilemeasuring our results against multiple web browsersFurthermore we plan to analyze volatile data that may beavailable in an incident responseThis paper is organized as follows Section 2 provides

    a list of background terms Section 3 describes priorand related work in private browsing modes and portableweb browsers Section 4 discusses the four major browsersand their privacy capabilities Section 5 discusses severaldifferent portable web browsers Section 6 details theimplementation and experiments Sections 7 and 8 concludethe paper with some open questions future work anddiscussion

    2 Background definitionsIn this section we provide a list of background termsand definitions (Table 1) to assist readers with some ofthe terminology used in this research

    Table 1 Terms and definitions

    Terminology Definition

    Residual artifacts Remaining data such as files images d

    Affirmative link Judicially devised standard to aid Cour

    ISO image A computer file that is an exact copy o

    Virtual machine Simulation of a real machine

    Prefetch files (Windows) Each time an application is run on a Wis created to speed boot time

    $I30$MFT New Technology File System (NTFS) In

    Browser cache Temporary Internet files (storage) for in

    RAM Working memory that is volatile

    Pagefile (paging) Virtual memory designated on disk

    Memdump Action of dumping volatile memory in

    Drive free space Referencing the unallocated space on

    Slack spacefile slack Unused space in a disk cluster (area be

    System volume information Volume shadow copy (snapshots) for s

    FTK orphan directory Contains files that no longer have a pa

    Data carving There are many different types of datamost data carvers extract content by lo

    3 Related work31 Private browsingIn the study [1] on private browsing modes in modernbrowsers researchers presented a list of inconsistenciesbetween private browsing goals and browser implementa-tions They also defined private browsing modes to havetwo primary goals privacy against the web and privacyagainst local machines Meaning the users identity shouldnot be identified over the Internet (web) and the usersactivity should not be recorded on the machine (local)One example is that Mozilla Firefox and Google Chromeboth take steps to remain private against websitesduring private mode Apple Safari on the other handtakes measures to only protect against local machinesbut through our research we will exploit some of thevulnerability to that methodThe researchers found that all the web browsers (tested)

    failed in one way or another when analyzing policies Thisis mainly because of complications introduced by browserplug-ins and extensions It was also shown that extensionscan weaken private browsing modes and therefore activitiescan still be recorded One example is that Google Chromedisables all extensions during private browsing mode andFirefox does not With regard to inconsistencies within asingle browser the researchers found that cookies set inpublic mode in Firefox 36 are not available to the webwhen browsing privately however SSL certificates andpasswords areUltimately this study establishes a good foundation for

    private browsing analysis but lacks significant findingsThe areas primarily studied were policy inconsistencies

    ocuments and web content

    ts in determining sufficiency of evidence between subject and offense

    f an existing file CD DVD etc

    indows machine a Prefetch file referencing the loaded application

    dex AttributeMaster File Table

    creasing speed

    to a file to view contents

    disk

    tween end of file and end of disk cluster)

    ystem restorebackup

    rent and the parent folder is overwritten (using $MFT as a reference)

    carving techniques (block-based statistical semantic etc) but essentiallyoking for file headersfooters and then lsquocarvingrsquo data blocks in between

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 3 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    browser extension weaknesses private browsing usagewebsite user discoverability and Firefox vulnerabilitiesVarious files and folders which were privately modifiedand accessed are pointed out by the researchers but theydo retrieve specific data that is deleted after a privatesession is terminated Also volatile memory artifacts wereignored because they wanted to show discoverability afterthe memory was cleared When a small experiment wasconducted running a memory leaking program certainartifacts from private browsing sessions were discoveredin the memory The reason for this was explainedthat operating systems often cache DNS resolutionsand therefore by analyzing the cache and TTL valuesan investigator can learn if and when the user visiteda particular site In addition the Operating System canswap memory pages leaving further traces of user activityIn contrast to this research we plan to examine all

    four major web browsers utilizing a different acquisitionmethod Our goal is to extract as much data as possibleincluding deleted and volatile data to obtain sufficientinformation within the artifacts retrieved One researcharticle [4] argues that browser vendors deliver exactlywhat they claim but consumers have limited knowledge asto what private browsing modes can actually do Comparingthis article to the first study [1] proves otherwise There areclearly private policy inconsistencies within the four majorbrowsers according to the data

    32 Portable web browsingOne study on portable web browsers [2] explained thatportable web browsing artifacts are primarily storedwhere the installation folder is located (removable disk)Residual artifacts such as USB identifiers and portableprograms can be discovered by analyzing the WindowsRegistry and Windows Prefetch files Furthermorethey state that if the removable disk is not accessibleto the investigator it is impossible to trace any furtherinformation In regard to portable software discoverabilitythe researchers stated that it was difficult to determineportable web browser usage on a host machine The majorityof these statements were made without the basis ofany true experimental findings Therefore every oneof these statements will be fully tested in our researchto determine authoritative answers We plan to recoversignificant residual artifacts located on host machinestesting several different portable web browsers Eventhough USB identifiers are important to obtain it iseven more important to establish an affirmative linkbetween user and session

    33 Flash driveIn comparison to current portable software Sandisk andMicrosoft worked together many years ago on a projectcalled U3 Technology [5] Essentially the idea was to

    allow consumers to carry a portable disk containingpersonalized files and web browsers U3 flash driveswere pre-installed with a U3 Launchpad similar to anOS start menu with various programs installed Thereare two partitions to the U3 flash drive structure one is amass storage device and the other is a virtual CD-ROMThe virtual partition was actually an ISO image which waswhy information was read but not written to the diskAccording to one study [6] U3 devices created a folder onhost machines and recorded user activity Once the diskwas ejected a cleanup program was executed and automat-ically removed all user activity from that system Byanalyzing the Windows Prefetch files researchers were ableto identify which programs were run from the U3 deviceIn another study on battling U3 anti-forensics [7] U3

    identifiers were discovered as well by analyzing theWindows Registry and Prefetch directory The majority oftraces were located within slack space and free space ofthe hard drive For this reason our research experimentswill be conducted using separate physical hard drives toincorporate the possibility of discovering data within theseareas Even though sufficient evidence was obtained tosupport which U3 programs were launched it was stillextremely difficult for researchers to identify othersignificant artifacts We will probably face the samebarriers in our research Overall the U3 portable diskprovided a sense of privacy and personalization to usersOver time there had been numerous complaints aboutU3 devices such as potential incompatibility and malware-like behavior SanDisk began phasing out support for U3Technology in late 2009 [3] and the U3 disk has beendiscontinued

    4 Major browsers and private browsingIn this section we discuss four major web browsers andtheir private browsing implementations

    41 Microsoft Internet ExplorerMicrosoft Internet Explorer (IE) is one of the mostcommonly used web browsers on Windows machinesA list of areas where most IE web browsing artifactsare located is as follows

    Cookies (Indexdat) History (Indexdat) Registry (typed URLs search queries auto-complete

    protected storage) NTUSERdat Temporary Internet Files and Indexdat Entries Downloads

    IE also offers users a private browsing feature calledInPrivate Browsing According to Microsoft [8] InPrivateBrowsing enables users to surf the Internet without leaving

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 4 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    a trace on their computer However while using InPrivateBrowsing some information such as cookies and tempor-ary files are temporarily stored so that web pages will workcorrectly Once the browsing session is ended all of thatdata is discarded Table 2 shows a list of areas affectedby InPrivate Browsing and is available to the publicon Microsofts webpage In regard to web browserextensions IE disables all toolbars and extensionsduring InPrivate Browsing sessions to ensure betterprivacy IE also does not clear toolbars and extensionsafter a private session is ended

    42 Google chromeGoogle Chrome is another very popular web browserthat can be found on both Windows and Mac operatingsystems A list of common areas where Chrome webbrowsing artifacts can be located is as follows

    JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) structure - textbased open standard design for human readable data

    Downloads Bookmarks Web data Keyword search terms Keywords URL database History index (YYY-MM) Current and last sessions Top sites database Media cache

    Chrome also offers something called Incognito modefor users to browse the Internet in a private settingAccording to Google [9] Incognito mode does notrecord any browsing or download histories and allcreated cookies will be removed when exiting a sessioncompletely Additionally Google states that if users are

    Table 2 Microsoft IE InPrivate browsing features

    Data How InPrivate browsing affects data

    Cookies Contained in working memory butcleared after session

    Temporary internet files Stored on disk but deleted aftersession

    Webpage history Not stored

    Form data and passwords Not stored

    Anti-phishing cache Temporary information is encryptedand stored

    Address bar and auto-complete

    Not stored

    Automatic cache restore Restore is successful only if tab crashesand not entire session

    Document object modelstorage

    Discarded after session

    working in Chrome OS surfing the Internet underguest browsing essentially does the same thing Oncethe guest session is closed all browsing information iscompletely erased

    43 Mozilla FirefoxMozilla Firefox is another popular web browser that canbe found on multiple platforms Web browsers such asChrome and Firefox can also be found on mobile devicessuch as Androids iPads etc A list of common areas whereFirefox web browsing artifacts can be located is as follows

    Sqlite database structure Prefsjs (user preferences) Signonstxt (encrypted data for website

    authentication) Formhistorysqlite Cookiessqlite Firefox cache Placessqlite (bookmarks and history) Downloadssqlite

    Just like all other major web browsers Firefox offers adiscreet browsing mode called Private Browsing Accordingto Mozilla [10] Private Browsing mode allows users to surfthe Internet without saving any information about visitedsites or pages Table 3 shows a list of areas affected byPrivate Browsing and is available to the public on Mozillaswebpage Mozilla makes it clear that private browsingmodes do not make users anonymous from web sitesISPs and networks In other words Private Browsing ismerely affected in the Application Layer recognized in theOS Aside from other privacy features there is an optionto enable the Do-Not-Track feature in Firefox whichrequests that websites do not track user browsingbehavior This request is honored voluntarily and AppleSafari offers the same In the experimental phase of our

    Table 3 Mozilla private browsing features

    Data How private browsing affects data

    Visited pages Will not be added in History menuLibrary history or other bar list

    Form and search bar entries Nothing entered will be saved for FormAuto-complete

    Passwords No new passwords will be saved

    Download list entries No downloaded files will be listed underDownloads

    Cookies Does not save

    Cached web content Not saved

    Flash cookies Latest version of Flash must be used toprevent saving

    Offline web content anduser data

    Not saved

    Figure 1 PortableApps launchpadFigure 2 Hard drive setup with labels

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 5 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    research these types of features will be optimized for fullprivacy

    44 Apple safariThe Apple Safari web browser is primarily used onMaciOS operating systems but is also available forWindows A list of common areas where Safari webbrowsing artifacts can be located is as follows

    plist (Propert List) structure Cookiesplist Bookmarksplist Historyplist WebpageIconsdb Keychainsplist Downloadsplist

    Apples latest version of the Safari web browser forWindows is Safari 517 [11] When Safari launched 60they did not update the Windows versions Most peoplehave assumed that Apple is moving away from Windowscompatibility According to Apple Private Browsing modeensures that web pages are not added to the history listcookie changes are discarded searches are not added to

    the search fields and websites cannot modify informationstored on the computer

    5 Portable softwareIn this section we discuss several major web browsersthat are made available in portable formats and wereused for this research

    51 Portable application and web browsersTo allow for certain portable browsers to work a freeprogram called PortableApps [12] was used for thisresearch PortableApps is similar to the previouslymentioned U3 Launchpad in that it allows you totake portable applications with you as you go It isbased on an open source platform and will work withalmost any portable storage device Figure 1 showshow the launchpad is structured In our study theapplication was installed on a USB flash drive Threeportable web browsers were selected through PortableAppsMozilla Firefox Portable 1801 [13] Google ChromePortable 240131252 [14] and Opera Portable 1212[15] The reason Apple Safari Portable was not selectedbecause it was not in fact portable The most updatedversion located was not a standalone executable programand it had to be installed onto the machine According

    Figure 3 DaemonFS monitoring example

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 6 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    to Mozilla the Portable Edition leaves no personalinformation behind on the machine it runs on [13]All the portable browsers were essentially designedfor users to carry customized browsers without leavingtraces on machines That is why artifacts such as webbrowsing history passwords and auto-fill forms are storedwhere the portable browser installation folder is locatedPrivacy modes can also be enabled to help block flashcookies and other artifacts from storing within theinstallation folder

    6 Implementations and experimentsIn this section we provide a brief overview of privateand portable web browsing sessions that will be analyzedusing computer forensics

    61 Tools and setupThe following tools were used for the assessmentsacquisitions examinations and analysis

    Table 4 Browser analysis during normal browsing sessions

    Browser Primary changes

    Internet explorer 80 Temp File Directory files (Concreated modified and delete

    Google chrome 230127195 Directory ChromeUser DataDefaultSession Storage) files

    Firefox 1701 Directory FirefoxProfiles (Cacmodified and deleted

    Safari 517 Directory AppleComputerSafiles are created modified an

    Hardware

    1- Desktop (PC - forensic workstation - 4-GB RAM) 1- Laptop (PC - forensic workstation - 6-GB RAM) 8ndash160 GB SATA Hard Drives (one dedicated drive

    for lab) 1- USB Flash Drive (8 GB) 1- USB External Drive (1 TB WD Passport) 1- SATA to USB Adapter 1- Tableau USB Write Blocker (IDESATA) Antistatic Bags and Antistatic Wrist Strap

    Software

    Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (64) Internet Explorer Firefox Safari Chrome VMware - virtualization software DaemonFS - file integrity monitoring program Disk Wipe - to replace data on disk with zeros Nirsoft Internet Tools - history cache and

    cookie viewers

    tentIE HistoryIE5 Cookies Recovery Custom Destinations Indexdat) ared

    (Safe Browsing Whitelist Default Cache Current Session DefaultHistoryare created modified and deleted

    he jumpListCache etc) and Win CustomDestinations files are created

    fari (Cache History Webpage Previews Cookies WebpageIconsdb)d deleted

    Table 5 Browser analysis during private browsing sessions

    Private browser Noticeable change

    IE InPrivate Browsing Everything gets deleted when exiting the browser and the entire session is terminated

    Google Chrome Incognito Mode Safe Browsing databases Cookies and History are modified no changes during session but thechrome_shutdown_mstxt is replaced with a new timestamp when session ends

    Firefox Private Browsing Safe Browsing database gets modified nothing appears to be written while surfing but whensession ends some FirefoxProfile files are modified

    Safari Private Browsing Only NTuserdat appears to be modified

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 7 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    Live View - Java based tool to convert dd to vmdk PortableApps - portable application Launchpad Firefox Portable Chrome Portable Opera Portable FTK Imager - used to create forensic images FTK Imager Lite - portable version AccessData FTK version 32 (Licensed) - used to

    analyze forensic images and organize information

    The key to our research was for us to conduct a stan-dardized test across multiple controlled environmentsTherefore all the experiments were handled in a forensic-ally sound manner as if we were handling real evidencePhotographs were taken forensic images were createdprocedures were properly documented and evidence wassafely preservedWe began by taking every hard drive and removing

    residual data using Disk Wipe [16] Each disk wasconnected to a secondary forensic workstation (laptop)through a SATA to USB Adapter The Disk Wipe toolprovides several different wiping options and writes overdata with zeros The first disk was tested by examining itforensically after wiping it with only one pass Sincethere was some residual data that was found a DoDAlgorithm was selected next to wipe the disk using threepasses this method proved to be more efficient Afterevery disk was successfully wiped each one was installedwith Windows 7 Professional - 64 bits The 64-bitversion was used so that more random-access memory(RAM) could later be testedNext each disk was installed with only one specific

    Internet browser pre-loaded from an external hard driveexcept for the portable applications The web browsersinstalled were Microsoft Internet Explorer Mozilla FirefoxApple Safari and Google Chrome Each browser wasconfigured to launch automatically into private browsing

    Table 6 Browser analysis using portable web browsers

    Portable browser Host machine activity

    Opera portable Temp files appear to be created on disk a

    Firefox portable MozillaRoaming directory was modified

    Google chrome portable Folder called GoogleChromePortable hadand Portable Chrome Cache

    Safari portable Setup files are portable but must be insta

    mode except for Safari which had to be done manually Itis important to note since prior research [1] showedbrowser plug-ins and extensions to cause weakness toprivate browsing sessions none were installed It is alsoimportant to note that everything was pre-configuredbefore connecting to the Internet Figure 2 shows the harddrives being configured and labeled

    62 Preliminary analysisWhile the disks were being properly developed a baselinewas established using a laptop with VMware and a fileintegrity monitoring program called DaemonFS [17] Thisassisted with having a general idea for which areas weremodified and accessed during normal private andportable web browsing sessions Once DaemonFS waslaunched it was set to monitor all activity within thelocal hard drive (root) After the logical parameterwas set each web browser was individually launchedand tested using a series of standardized steps Figure 3shows how the log is generated during activity Thesesteps included article searches image searches videosearches email account logins bank account logins andonline purchase attempts See Tables 4 5 and 6 for results

    63 Private ate browsing experimentsAuthor1 has a background in law enforcement and hasexperience analyzing digital media for a vast array ofcrimes The Internet activities used for these experimentswere adapted from an abundance of information to includepast experience and knowledge It is important to note thatthese principles can still be applied to all aspects ofInternet forensics regardless of whether or not the scoperelates to a crime These types of browsing sessions canvery well be conducted without any criminal intent Theoverall purpose of digital forensics is to help establish and

    nd then are deleted when session ends

    and a few temp files under Local AppData were createddeleted

    files created modified and deleted including Sys32WinevtLogs

    lled on system (not standaloneexe) therefore will not be used for testing

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 8 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    articulate an affirmative link between A (artifact) and B(person place or thing) By collecting and analyzingenough data evidentiary content can be producedTo begin the main experiments each disk was separately

    utilized as a single primary drive Every step was manuallyrecorded with timestamps for future reference points Forthe first four disks only private browsing sessions weretested using the installed web browsers For the purpose ofthese experiments a lsquobrowsing sessionrsquo will refer to allactivity conducted on one specific web browser Once aprivate browsing session was launched the same series ofsteps were performed for each browser Table 7 shows thedetails of these standardized sessionsAfter each browsing session was complete the web

    browser process tree was terminated (verified) and theRAM was dumped into a file using FTK Imager Lite(installed on USB) Not only was the memory dumpedbut Registry files were obtained the pagefilesys wasextracted and an ad1 image file of the RAM wascreated as well The location of the RAM dump was storedon the target machines Desktop due to reasons that willlater be explained This would probably not be preferred ina real setting unless it was absolutely necessary In anyevent it is always important to document the footprintsleft behind on a live environment Initially the data wasextracted to an external hard drive The machine was thenunplugged from the back and the disk was carefullyremoved As noted a few extra things were done topreserve sound results The working memory wasdumped before and after every disk session to ensurethat residual data was not left over in the RAM fromthe session before In addition several Internet toolsfrom Nirsoft [18] such as cache viewer history viewerand cookie viewer were executed after each browsingsession was terminated and yielded negative resultsMeaning nothing could be discovered using these toolsafter private browsing sessions were used

    Table 7 Internet sessions used for experiments

    Website Standardized steps

    Google Search for various images sites and forums targeteand images

    Yahoo Search for various sites and forums targeted for crim

    YouTube Search for how-to videos on different types hacking (

    Gmail Send email with attachments

    Hotmail Send email with attachments

    Yahoo Mail Send email with attachments

    SHSU Mail Send email with attachments

    Online Banking Log into several accounts (stores cookies and certifi

    Ammunition-to-Go Attempt to purchase large amounts (2000+) of am

    Online Firearms Store Search for high capacity magazines and various we

    Craigslist Search for different types of items for sale that mig

    64 Portable browsing experimentThe next three disks were used in conjunction withportable web browsers running from a USB flash driveThe flash drive was installed with a program calledPortableApps Essentially PortableApps allows you torun different programs from a flash drive similar toan OS Start menu After setting up the Launchpad threeportable web browsers were installed on the flash driveMozilla Firefox Portable Google Chrome Portable andOpera Portable Again each hard disk was separately usedas a primary hard drive but this time without any otherweb browsers installed Each portable web browser wasindividually launched while performing the same series ofstandardized steps as the first four disks (Table 7)Whenever a disk was complete it was carefully placed intoan antistatic bag and into a cool dry place for storage Inaddition an antistatic wrist band was used while handlingall internal electronic components

    65 Forensic acquisition and analysisThe last hard disk was developed with Windows 7 andFTK 32 to make it a dedicated computer forensic worksta-tion AccessDatas Forensic Toolkit (FTK) [19] is a court ac-cepted program used for examining computers and mobiledevices at the forensic level Each disk was individuallyconnected to the Desktop using a hardware-based writeblocker (Tableau) to protect any data from being altered bythe computer Digital evidence preservation is the most im-portant factor next to chain of custody when it comes toforensic integrity Using FTK Imager a bit stream image ofeach evidence disk was created as a compressed E01 imagefile and was verified by several different hashes Each imagetook anywhere from 3 to 5 h to complete Next individualimages were forensically examined analyzed and classifiedby FTK 32 One disk image took up to 72 h to process andthe disks with the installed browsers took the longest

    d for criminal activity click on top five links savedownload different files

    inal activity click on top five links savedownload available files

    social media bank accounts and WiFi connections) click on links to open

    cates)

    munition (various high powered rounds) by searching and adding to cart

    apons

    ht be flagged as stolen

    Table 8 Private web browsing artifacts

    Artifacts Discovered Target locations

    Microsoft internet explorer80 (InPrivate browsing)

    Private browsingindicator

    Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo - prior to URL history)$I30 (hellipContentIE5- lsquoinprivate [1]rsquo- prior to list of jpegs) Pagefile

    Browsing history Y Memdump Free space File slack (Temporary Internet Folder RoaminghellipCustomDestinations) SysVol Info $LogFile $J AppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

    Usernamesemailaccounts

    Y Memdump Freespace Temporary Internet Folder UserAppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

    Images Y Memdump (partial photos) Free space (full content) File slack (full content)

    Videos N NA

    Google chrome 230127195(Incognito)

    Incognitoindicators

    Y Memdump ChromehellipInstallerchrome7z amp chromedll (timestamp matches)$I30 (safebrowsing timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser Datachrome_shutdown_mstxt (always updates with timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultExtension Statelog (declarative_rulesincognitodeclaritiveWebRequest- timestamp matches session start) ~SysVol Information (new incognitowindow with timestamps) AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (new incognito window with timestamps) ChromeUserDataSafebrowsingcookiesdb (modified timestamp)

    Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Info (matching timestamps) Pagefilesys (downloaded file)

    Usernamesemailaccounts

    N NA

    Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

    Videos N NA

    Mozilla Firefox 1701(Private browsing)

    Private browsingindicators

    Y Memdump (browsing mode) SysVolume Information (Enter Private Browsingand Windowrsquos User listed below- file timestamp accurate)

    Browsing history Y Memdump Free space- AppDatahellipTemp WinPrefetch (rtf temp file downloaddiscovered) AppDatahellipFirefoxProfiles (blacklistxml- matching timestamps)FirefoxProfiles (file timestamps update)

    Usernamesemailaccounts

    N NA

    Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

    Videos N NA

    Apple Safari 517(Private browsing)

    Private browsingindicators

    Y Memdump ~SysVol Information (comappleSafariPrivateBrowsing timestamp)

    Browsing history Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (URL History) AppDataLocalAppleCompSafariWebpageIconsdbgt gt tables AppDataLocalAppleCompSafari (databasestimestamp updates) AppDatahellipAppleCompSafari amp Preferences(several plist timestamp updates) Pagefile (URLs and modified timestamps update)

    Usernamesemailaccounts

    N NA

    Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

    Videos N NA

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 9 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    Aside from the default processing options in FTKadditional refinements were selected to carve differenttypes of data and parse complex information Once FTKfinished processing the evidence files numerous hourswere spent sifting through the data We found that itwas also beneficial to use a program called Live View[20] to have a better understanding of the artifactsfound Live View is an open source program that canconvert a raw image to a virtual disk The disk must bebooted into safe mode for the virtual machine to workcorrectly without having to activate Windows By usingtwo screens simultaneously one with a live virtual

    environment and the other with the forensic image inFTK it allowed us to fully grasp and understand theconnections See Tables 8 and 9 for complete results

    66 Results analysisPrivate browsing modes and portable web browsers doin fact leave incriminating evidence but it depends onthe browser Some web browsers left enough informationto establish an affirmative link and some did not Out ofthe four major web browsers Internet Explorer providedthe most residual artifacts but not where commonartifacts are typically sought This was fairly consistent

    Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

    Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

    Google chromeportable - 240131252

    Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

    Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

    Usernamesemailaccounts

    Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

    Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

    Videos N NA

    Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

    Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

    Usernamesemailaccounts

    N NA

    Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

    Videos N NA

    Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

    Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

    Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

    Usernamesemailaccounts

    Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

    Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

    Videos N NA

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

    to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

    Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

    always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

    most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

    view)

    Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

    appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

    Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

    drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

    much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

    them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

    Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

    An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

    7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

    over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

    8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

    Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

    Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

    References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

    browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

    2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

    3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

    4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

    5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

    6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

    7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

    8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

    9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

    10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

    11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

    12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

    13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

    14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

    15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

    16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

    17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

    18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

    19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

    20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

    doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

    Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

    7 Convenient online submission

    7 Rigorous peer review

    7 Immediate publication on acceptance

    7 Open access articles freely available online

    7 High visibility within the fi eld

    7 Retaining the copyright to your article

    Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

    • Abstract
    • 1 Introduction
    • 2 Background definitions
    • 3 Related work
      • 31 Private browsing
      • 32 Portable web browsing
      • 33 Flash drive
        • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
          • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
          • 42 Google chrome
          • 43 Mozilla Firefox
          • 44 Apple safari
            • 5 Portable software
              • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                • 6 Implementations and experiments
                  • 61 Tools and setup
                    • Hardware
                    • Software
                      • 62 Preliminary analysis
                      • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                      • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                      • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                      • 66 Results analysis
                      • 67 Additional forensic results
                        • 7 Future work
                        • 8 Conclusion
                        • Competing interests
                        • References

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 3 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      browser extension weaknesses private browsing usagewebsite user discoverability and Firefox vulnerabilitiesVarious files and folders which were privately modifiedand accessed are pointed out by the researchers but theydo retrieve specific data that is deleted after a privatesession is terminated Also volatile memory artifacts wereignored because they wanted to show discoverability afterthe memory was cleared When a small experiment wasconducted running a memory leaking program certainartifacts from private browsing sessions were discoveredin the memory The reason for this was explainedthat operating systems often cache DNS resolutionsand therefore by analyzing the cache and TTL valuesan investigator can learn if and when the user visiteda particular site In addition the Operating System canswap memory pages leaving further traces of user activityIn contrast to this research we plan to examine all

      four major web browsers utilizing a different acquisitionmethod Our goal is to extract as much data as possibleincluding deleted and volatile data to obtain sufficientinformation within the artifacts retrieved One researcharticle [4] argues that browser vendors deliver exactlywhat they claim but consumers have limited knowledge asto what private browsing modes can actually do Comparingthis article to the first study [1] proves otherwise There areclearly private policy inconsistencies within the four majorbrowsers according to the data

      32 Portable web browsingOne study on portable web browsers [2] explained thatportable web browsing artifacts are primarily storedwhere the installation folder is located (removable disk)Residual artifacts such as USB identifiers and portableprograms can be discovered by analyzing the WindowsRegistry and Windows Prefetch files Furthermorethey state that if the removable disk is not accessibleto the investigator it is impossible to trace any furtherinformation In regard to portable software discoverabilitythe researchers stated that it was difficult to determineportable web browser usage on a host machine The majorityof these statements were made without the basis ofany true experimental findings Therefore every oneof these statements will be fully tested in our researchto determine authoritative answers We plan to recoversignificant residual artifacts located on host machinestesting several different portable web browsers Eventhough USB identifiers are important to obtain it iseven more important to establish an affirmative linkbetween user and session

      33 Flash driveIn comparison to current portable software Sandisk andMicrosoft worked together many years ago on a projectcalled U3 Technology [5] Essentially the idea was to

      allow consumers to carry a portable disk containingpersonalized files and web browsers U3 flash driveswere pre-installed with a U3 Launchpad similar to anOS start menu with various programs installed Thereare two partitions to the U3 flash drive structure one is amass storage device and the other is a virtual CD-ROMThe virtual partition was actually an ISO image which waswhy information was read but not written to the diskAccording to one study [6] U3 devices created a folder onhost machines and recorded user activity Once the diskwas ejected a cleanup program was executed and automat-ically removed all user activity from that system Byanalyzing the Windows Prefetch files researchers were ableto identify which programs were run from the U3 deviceIn another study on battling U3 anti-forensics [7] U3

      identifiers were discovered as well by analyzing theWindows Registry and Prefetch directory The majority oftraces were located within slack space and free space ofthe hard drive For this reason our research experimentswill be conducted using separate physical hard drives toincorporate the possibility of discovering data within theseareas Even though sufficient evidence was obtained tosupport which U3 programs were launched it was stillextremely difficult for researchers to identify othersignificant artifacts We will probably face the samebarriers in our research Overall the U3 portable diskprovided a sense of privacy and personalization to usersOver time there had been numerous complaints aboutU3 devices such as potential incompatibility and malware-like behavior SanDisk began phasing out support for U3Technology in late 2009 [3] and the U3 disk has beendiscontinued

      4 Major browsers and private browsingIn this section we discuss four major web browsers andtheir private browsing implementations

      41 Microsoft Internet ExplorerMicrosoft Internet Explorer (IE) is one of the mostcommonly used web browsers on Windows machinesA list of areas where most IE web browsing artifactsare located is as follows

      Cookies (Indexdat) History (Indexdat) Registry (typed URLs search queries auto-complete

      protected storage) NTUSERdat Temporary Internet Files and Indexdat Entries Downloads

      IE also offers users a private browsing feature calledInPrivate Browsing According to Microsoft [8] InPrivateBrowsing enables users to surf the Internet without leaving

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 4 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      a trace on their computer However while using InPrivateBrowsing some information such as cookies and tempor-ary files are temporarily stored so that web pages will workcorrectly Once the browsing session is ended all of thatdata is discarded Table 2 shows a list of areas affectedby InPrivate Browsing and is available to the publicon Microsofts webpage In regard to web browserextensions IE disables all toolbars and extensionsduring InPrivate Browsing sessions to ensure betterprivacy IE also does not clear toolbars and extensionsafter a private session is ended

      42 Google chromeGoogle Chrome is another very popular web browserthat can be found on both Windows and Mac operatingsystems A list of common areas where Chrome webbrowsing artifacts can be located is as follows

      JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) structure - textbased open standard design for human readable data

      Downloads Bookmarks Web data Keyword search terms Keywords URL database History index (YYY-MM) Current and last sessions Top sites database Media cache

      Chrome also offers something called Incognito modefor users to browse the Internet in a private settingAccording to Google [9] Incognito mode does notrecord any browsing or download histories and allcreated cookies will be removed when exiting a sessioncompletely Additionally Google states that if users are

      Table 2 Microsoft IE InPrivate browsing features

      Data How InPrivate browsing affects data

      Cookies Contained in working memory butcleared after session

      Temporary internet files Stored on disk but deleted aftersession

      Webpage history Not stored

      Form data and passwords Not stored

      Anti-phishing cache Temporary information is encryptedand stored

      Address bar and auto-complete

      Not stored

      Automatic cache restore Restore is successful only if tab crashesand not entire session

      Document object modelstorage

      Discarded after session

      working in Chrome OS surfing the Internet underguest browsing essentially does the same thing Oncethe guest session is closed all browsing information iscompletely erased

      43 Mozilla FirefoxMozilla Firefox is another popular web browser that canbe found on multiple platforms Web browsers such asChrome and Firefox can also be found on mobile devicessuch as Androids iPads etc A list of common areas whereFirefox web browsing artifacts can be located is as follows

      Sqlite database structure Prefsjs (user preferences) Signonstxt (encrypted data for website

      authentication) Formhistorysqlite Cookiessqlite Firefox cache Placessqlite (bookmarks and history) Downloadssqlite

      Just like all other major web browsers Firefox offers adiscreet browsing mode called Private Browsing Accordingto Mozilla [10] Private Browsing mode allows users to surfthe Internet without saving any information about visitedsites or pages Table 3 shows a list of areas affected byPrivate Browsing and is available to the public on Mozillaswebpage Mozilla makes it clear that private browsingmodes do not make users anonymous from web sitesISPs and networks In other words Private Browsing ismerely affected in the Application Layer recognized in theOS Aside from other privacy features there is an optionto enable the Do-Not-Track feature in Firefox whichrequests that websites do not track user browsingbehavior This request is honored voluntarily and AppleSafari offers the same In the experimental phase of our

      Table 3 Mozilla private browsing features

      Data How private browsing affects data

      Visited pages Will not be added in History menuLibrary history or other bar list

      Form and search bar entries Nothing entered will be saved for FormAuto-complete

      Passwords No new passwords will be saved

      Download list entries No downloaded files will be listed underDownloads

      Cookies Does not save

      Cached web content Not saved

      Flash cookies Latest version of Flash must be used toprevent saving

      Offline web content anduser data

      Not saved

      Figure 1 PortableApps launchpadFigure 2 Hard drive setup with labels

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 5 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      research these types of features will be optimized for fullprivacy

      44 Apple safariThe Apple Safari web browser is primarily used onMaciOS operating systems but is also available forWindows A list of common areas where Safari webbrowsing artifacts can be located is as follows

      plist (Propert List) structure Cookiesplist Bookmarksplist Historyplist WebpageIconsdb Keychainsplist Downloadsplist

      Apples latest version of the Safari web browser forWindows is Safari 517 [11] When Safari launched 60they did not update the Windows versions Most peoplehave assumed that Apple is moving away from Windowscompatibility According to Apple Private Browsing modeensures that web pages are not added to the history listcookie changes are discarded searches are not added to

      the search fields and websites cannot modify informationstored on the computer

      5 Portable softwareIn this section we discuss several major web browsersthat are made available in portable formats and wereused for this research

      51 Portable application and web browsersTo allow for certain portable browsers to work a freeprogram called PortableApps [12] was used for thisresearch PortableApps is similar to the previouslymentioned U3 Launchpad in that it allows you totake portable applications with you as you go It isbased on an open source platform and will work withalmost any portable storage device Figure 1 showshow the launchpad is structured In our study theapplication was installed on a USB flash drive Threeportable web browsers were selected through PortableAppsMozilla Firefox Portable 1801 [13] Google ChromePortable 240131252 [14] and Opera Portable 1212[15] The reason Apple Safari Portable was not selectedbecause it was not in fact portable The most updatedversion located was not a standalone executable programand it had to be installed onto the machine According

      Figure 3 DaemonFS monitoring example

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 6 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      to Mozilla the Portable Edition leaves no personalinformation behind on the machine it runs on [13]All the portable browsers were essentially designedfor users to carry customized browsers without leavingtraces on machines That is why artifacts such as webbrowsing history passwords and auto-fill forms are storedwhere the portable browser installation folder is locatedPrivacy modes can also be enabled to help block flashcookies and other artifacts from storing within theinstallation folder

      6 Implementations and experimentsIn this section we provide a brief overview of privateand portable web browsing sessions that will be analyzedusing computer forensics

      61 Tools and setupThe following tools were used for the assessmentsacquisitions examinations and analysis

      Table 4 Browser analysis during normal browsing sessions

      Browser Primary changes

      Internet explorer 80 Temp File Directory files (Concreated modified and delete

      Google chrome 230127195 Directory ChromeUser DataDefaultSession Storage) files

      Firefox 1701 Directory FirefoxProfiles (Cacmodified and deleted

      Safari 517 Directory AppleComputerSafiles are created modified an

      Hardware

      1- Desktop (PC - forensic workstation - 4-GB RAM) 1- Laptop (PC - forensic workstation - 6-GB RAM) 8ndash160 GB SATA Hard Drives (one dedicated drive

      for lab) 1- USB Flash Drive (8 GB) 1- USB External Drive (1 TB WD Passport) 1- SATA to USB Adapter 1- Tableau USB Write Blocker (IDESATA) Antistatic Bags and Antistatic Wrist Strap

      Software

      Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (64) Internet Explorer Firefox Safari Chrome VMware - virtualization software DaemonFS - file integrity monitoring program Disk Wipe - to replace data on disk with zeros Nirsoft Internet Tools - history cache and

      cookie viewers

      tentIE HistoryIE5 Cookies Recovery Custom Destinations Indexdat) ared

      (Safe Browsing Whitelist Default Cache Current Session DefaultHistoryare created modified and deleted

      he jumpListCache etc) and Win CustomDestinations files are created

      fari (Cache History Webpage Previews Cookies WebpageIconsdb)d deleted

      Table 5 Browser analysis during private browsing sessions

      Private browser Noticeable change

      IE InPrivate Browsing Everything gets deleted when exiting the browser and the entire session is terminated

      Google Chrome Incognito Mode Safe Browsing databases Cookies and History are modified no changes during session but thechrome_shutdown_mstxt is replaced with a new timestamp when session ends

      Firefox Private Browsing Safe Browsing database gets modified nothing appears to be written while surfing but whensession ends some FirefoxProfile files are modified

      Safari Private Browsing Only NTuserdat appears to be modified

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 7 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      Live View - Java based tool to convert dd to vmdk PortableApps - portable application Launchpad Firefox Portable Chrome Portable Opera Portable FTK Imager - used to create forensic images FTK Imager Lite - portable version AccessData FTK version 32 (Licensed) - used to

      analyze forensic images and organize information

      The key to our research was for us to conduct a stan-dardized test across multiple controlled environmentsTherefore all the experiments were handled in a forensic-ally sound manner as if we were handling real evidencePhotographs were taken forensic images were createdprocedures were properly documented and evidence wassafely preservedWe began by taking every hard drive and removing

      residual data using Disk Wipe [16] Each disk wasconnected to a secondary forensic workstation (laptop)through a SATA to USB Adapter The Disk Wipe toolprovides several different wiping options and writes overdata with zeros The first disk was tested by examining itforensically after wiping it with only one pass Sincethere was some residual data that was found a DoDAlgorithm was selected next to wipe the disk using threepasses this method proved to be more efficient Afterevery disk was successfully wiped each one was installedwith Windows 7 Professional - 64 bits The 64-bitversion was used so that more random-access memory(RAM) could later be testedNext each disk was installed with only one specific

      Internet browser pre-loaded from an external hard driveexcept for the portable applications The web browsersinstalled were Microsoft Internet Explorer Mozilla FirefoxApple Safari and Google Chrome Each browser wasconfigured to launch automatically into private browsing

      Table 6 Browser analysis using portable web browsers

      Portable browser Host machine activity

      Opera portable Temp files appear to be created on disk a

      Firefox portable MozillaRoaming directory was modified

      Google chrome portable Folder called GoogleChromePortable hadand Portable Chrome Cache

      Safari portable Setup files are portable but must be insta

      mode except for Safari which had to be done manually Itis important to note since prior research [1] showedbrowser plug-ins and extensions to cause weakness toprivate browsing sessions none were installed It is alsoimportant to note that everything was pre-configuredbefore connecting to the Internet Figure 2 shows the harddrives being configured and labeled

      62 Preliminary analysisWhile the disks were being properly developed a baselinewas established using a laptop with VMware and a fileintegrity monitoring program called DaemonFS [17] Thisassisted with having a general idea for which areas weremodified and accessed during normal private andportable web browsing sessions Once DaemonFS waslaunched it was set to monitor all activity within thelocal hard drive (root) After the logical parameterwas set each web browser was individually launchedand tested using a series of standardized steps Figure 3shows how the log is generated during activity Thesesteps included article searches image searches videosearches email account logins bank account logins andonline purchase attempts See Tables 4 5 and 6 for results

      63 Private ate browsing experimentsAuthor1 has a background in law enforcement and hasexperience analyzing digital media for a vast array ofcrimes The Internet activities used for these experimentswere adapted from an abundance of information to includepast experience and knowledge It is important to note thatthese principles can still be applied to all aspects ofInternet forensics regardless of whether or not the scoperelates to a crime These types of browsing sessions canvery well be conducted without any criminal intent Theoverall purpose of digital forensics is to help establish and

      nd then are deleted when session ends

      and a few temp files under Local AppData were createddeleted

      files created modified and deleted including Sys32WinevtLogs

      lled on system (not standaloneexe) therefore will not be used for testing

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 8 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      articulate an affirmative link between A (artifact) and B(person place or thing) By collecting and analyzingenough data evidentiary content can be producedTo begin the main experiments each disk was separately

      utilized as a single primary drive Every step was manuallyrecorded with timestamps for future reference points Forthe first four disks only private browsing sessions weretested using the installed web browsers For the purpose ofthese experiments a lsquobrowsing sessionrsquo will refer to allactivity conducted on one specific web browser Once aprivate browsing session was launched the same series ofsteps were performed for each browser Table 7 shows thedetails of these standardized sessionsAfter each browsing session was complete the web

      browser process tree was terminated (verified) and theRAM was dumped into a file using FTK Imager Lite(installed on USB) Not only was the memory dumpedbut Registry files were obtained the pagefilesys wasextracted and an ad1 image file of the RAM wascreated as well The location of the RAM dump was storedon the target machines Desktop due to reasons that willlater be explained This would probably not be preferred ina real setting unless it was absolutely necessary In anyevent it is always important to document the footprintsleft behind on a live environment Initially the data wasextracted to an external hard drive The machine was thenunplugged from the back and the disk was carefullyremoved As noted a few extra things were done topreserve sound results The working memory wasdumped before and after every disk session to ensurethat residual data was not left over in the RAM fromthe session before In addition several Internet toolsfrom Nirsoft [18] such as cache viewer history viewerand cookie viewer were executed after each browsingsession was terminated and yielded negative resultsMeaning nothing could be discovered using these toolsafter private browsing sessions were used

      Table 7 Internet sessions used for experiments

      Website Standardized steps

      Google Search for various images sites and forums targeteand images

      Yahoo Search for various sites and forums targeted for crim

      YouTube Search for how-to videos on different types hacking (

      Gmail Send email with attachments

      Hotmail Send email with attachments

      Yahoo Mail Send email with attachments

      SHSU Mail Send email with attachments

      Online Banking Log into several accounts (stores cookies and certifi

      Ammunition-to-Go Attempt to purchase large amounts (2000+) of am

      Online Firearms Store Search for high capacity magazines and various we

      Craigslist Search for different types of items for sale that mig

      64 Portable browsing experimentThe next three disks were used in conjunction withportable web browsers running from a USB flash driveThe flash drive was installed with a program calledPortableApps Essentially PortableApps allows you torun different programs from a flash drive similar toan OS Start menu After setting up the Launchpad threeportable web browsers were installed on the flash driveMozilla Firefox Portable Google Chrome Portable andOpera Portable Again each hard disk was separately usedas a primary hard drive but this time without any otherweb browsers installed Each portable web browser wasindividually launched while performing the same series ofstandardized steps as the first four disks (Table 7)Whenever a disk was complete it was carefully placed intoan antistatic bag and into a cool dry place for storage Inaddition an antistatic wrist band was used while handlingall internal electronic components

      65 Forensic acquisition and analysisThe last hard disk was developed with Windows 7 andFTK 32 to make it a dedicated computer forensic worksta-tion AccessDatas Forensic Toolkit (FTK) [19] is a court ac-cepted program used for examining computers and mobiledevices at the forensic level Each disk was individuallyconnected to the Desktop using a hardware-based writeblocker (Tableau) to protect any data from being altered bythe computer Digital evidence preservation is the most im-portant factor next to chain of custody when it comes toforensic integrity Using FTK Imager a bit stream image ofeach evidence disk was created as a compressed E01 imagefile and was verified by several different hashes Each imagetook anywhere from 3 to 5 h to complete Next individualimages were forensically examined analyzed and classifiedby FTK 32 One disk image took up to 72 h to process andthe disks with the installed browsers took the longest

      d for criminal activity click on top five links savedownload different files

      inal activity click on top five links savedownload available files

      social media bank accounts and WiFi connections) click on links to open

      cates)

      munition (various high powered rounds) by searching and adding to cart

      apons

      ht be flagged as stolen

      Table 8 Private web browsing artifacts

      Artifacts Discovered Target locations

      Microsoft internet explorer80 (InPrivate browsing)

      Private browsingindicator

      Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo - prior to URL history)$I30 (hellipContentIE5- lsquoinprivate [1]rsquo- prior to list of jpegs) Pagefile

      Browsing history Y Memdump Free space File slack (Temporary Internet Folder RoaminghellipCustomDestinations) SysVol Info $LogFile $J AppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

      Usernamesemailaccounts

      Y Memdump Freespace Temporary Internet Folder UserAppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

      Images Y Memdump (partial photos) Free space (full content) File slack (full content)

      Videos N NA

      Google chrome 230127195(Incognito)

      Incognitoindicators

      Y Memdump ChromehellipInstallerchrome7z amp chromedll (timestamp matches)$I30 (safebrowsing timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser Datachrome_shutdown_mstxt (always updates with timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultExtension Statelog (declarative_rulesincognitodeclaritiveWebRequest- timestamp matches session start) ~SysVol Information (new incognitowindow with timestamps) AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (new incognito window with timestamps) ChromeUserDataSafebrowsingcookiesdb (modified timestamp)

      Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Info (matching timestamps) Pagefilesys (downloaded file)

      Usernamesemailaccounts

      N NA

      Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

      Videos N NA

      Mozilla Firefox 1701(Private browsing)

      Private browsingindicators

      Y Memdump (browsing mode) SysVolume Information (Enter Private Browsingand Windowrsquos User listed below- file timestamp accurate)

      Browsing history Y Memdump Free space- AppDatahellipTemp WinPrefetch (rtf temp file downloaddiscovered) AppDatahellipFirefoxProfiles (blacklistxml- matching timestamps)FirefoxProfiles (file timestamps update)

      Usernamesemailaccounts

      N NA

      Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

      Videos N NA

      Apple Safari 517(Private browsing)

      Private browsingindicators

      Y Memdump ~SysVol Information (comappleSafariPrivateBrowsing timestamp)

      Browsing history Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (URL History) AppDataLocalAppleCompSafariWebpageIconsdbgt gt tables AppDataLocalAppleCompSafari (databasestimestamp updates) AppDatahellipAppleCompSafari amp Preferences(several plist timestamp updates) Pagefile (URLs and modified timestamps update)

      Usernamesemailaccounts

      N NA

      Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

      Videos N NA

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 9 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      Aside from the default processing options in FTKadditional refinements were selected to carve differenttypes of data and parse complex information Once FTKfinished processing the evidence files numerous hourswere spent sifting through the data We found that itwas also beneficial to use a program called Live View[20] to have a better understanding of the artifactsfound Live View is an open source program that canconvert a raw image to a virtual disk The disk must bebooted into safe mode for the virtual machine to workcorrectly without having to activate Windows By usingtwo screens simultaneously one with a live virtual

      environment and the other with the forensic image inFTK it allowed us to fully grasp and understand theconnections See Tables 8 and 9 for complete results

      66 Results analysisPrivate browsing modes and portable web browsers doin fact leave incriminating evidence but it depends onthe browser Some web browsers left enough informationto establish an affirmative link and some did not Out ofthe four major web browsers Internet Explorer providedthe most residual artifacts but not where commonartifacts are typically sought This was fairly consistent

      Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

      Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

      Google chromeportable - 240131252

      Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

      Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

      Usernamesemailaccounts

      Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

      Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

      Videos N NA

      Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

      Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

      Usernamesemailaccounts

      N NA

      Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

      Videos N NA

      Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

      Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

      Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

      Usernamesemailaccounts

      Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

      Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

      Videos N NA

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

      to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

      Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

      always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

      most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

      view)

      Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

      appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

      Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

      drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

      much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

      them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

      Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

      An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

      7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

      over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

      8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

      Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

      Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

      References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

      browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

      2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

      3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

      4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

      5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

      6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

      7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

      8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

      9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

      10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

      11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

      12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

      13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

      14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

      15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

      16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

      17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

      18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

      19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

      20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

      doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

      Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

      7 Convenient online submission

      7 Rigorous peer review

      7 Immediate publication on acceptance

      7 Open access articles freely available online

      7 High visibility within the fi eld

      7 Retaining the copyright to your article

      Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

      • Abstract
      • 1 Introduction
      • 2 Background definitions
      • 3 Related work
        • 31 Private browsing
        • 32 Portable web browsing
        • 33 Flash drive
          • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
            • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
            • 42 Google chrome
            • 43 Mozilla Firefox
            • 44 Apple safari
              • 5 Portable software
                • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                  • 6 Implementations and experiments
                    • 61 Tools and setup
                      • Hardware
                      • Software
                        • 62 Preliminary analysis
                        • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                        • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                        • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                        • 66 Results analysis
                        • 67 Additional forensic results
                          • 7 Future work
                          • 8 Conclusion
                          • Competing interests
                          • References

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 4 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        a trace on their computer However while using InPrivateBrowsing some information such as cookies and tempor-ary files are temporarily stored so that web pages will workcorrectly Once the browsing session is ended all of thatdata is discarded Table 2 shows a list of areas affectedby InPrivate Browsing and is available to the publicon Microsofts webpage In regard to web browserextensions IE disables all toolbars and extensionsduring InPrivate Browsing sessions to ensure betterprivacy IE also does not clear toolbars and extensionsafter a private session is ended

        42 Google chromeGoogle Chrome is another very popular web browserthat can be found on both Windows and Mac operatingsystems A list of common areas where Chrome webbrowsing artifacts can be located is as follows

        JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) structure - textbased open standard design for human readable data

        Downloads Bookmarks Web data Keyword search terms Keywords URL database History index (YYY-MM) Current and last sessions Top sites database Media cache

        Chrome also offers something called Incognito modefor users to browse the Internet in a private settingAccording to Google [9] Incognito mode does notrecord any browsing or download histories and allcreated cookies will be removed when exiting a sessioncompletely Additionally Google states that if users are

        Table 2 Microsoft IE InPrivate browsing features

        Data How InPrivate browsing affects data

        Cookies Contained in working memory butcleared after session

        Temporary internet files Stored on disk but deleted aftersession

        Webpage history Not stored

        Form data and passwords Not stored

        Anti-phishing cache Temporary information is encryptedand stored

        Address bar and auto-complete

        Not stored

        Automatic cache restore Restore is successful only if tab crashesand not entire session

        Document object modelstorage

        Discarded after session

        working in Chrome OS surfing the Internet underguest browsing essentially does the same thing Oncethe guest session is closed all browsing information iscompletely erased

        43 Mozilla FirefoxMozilla Firefox is another popular web browser that canbe found on multiple platforms Web browsers such asChrome and Firefox can also be found on mobile devicessuch as Androids iPads etc A list of common areas whereFirefox web browsing artifacts can be located is as follows

        Sqlite database structure Prefsjs (user preferences) Signonstxt (encrypted data for website

        authentication) Formhistorysqlite Cookiessqlite Firefox cache Placessqlite (bookmarks and history) Downloadssqlite

        Just like all other major web browsers Firefox offers adiscreet browsing mode called Private Browsing Accordingto Mozilla [10] Private Browsing mode allows users to surfthe Internet without saving any information about visitedsites or pages Table 3 shows a list of areas affected byPrivate Browsing and is available to the public on Mozillaswebpage Mozilla makes it clear that private browsingmodes do not make users anonymous from web sitesISPs and networks In other words Private Browsing ismerely affected in the Application Layer recognized in theOS Aside from other privacy features there is an optionto enable the Do-Not-Track feature in Firefox whichrequests that websites do not track user browsingbehavior This request is honored voluntarily and AppleSafari offers the same In the experimental phase of our

        Table 3 Mozilla private browsing features

        Data How private browsing affects data

        Visited pages Will not be added in History menuLibrary history or other bar list

        Form and search bar entries Nothing entered will be saved for FormAuto-complete

        Passwords No new passwords will be saved

        Download list entries No downloaded files will be listed underDownloads

        Cookies Does not save

        Cached web content Not saved

        Flash cookies Latest version of Flash must be used toprevent saving

        Offline web content anduser data

        Not saved

        Figure 1 PortableApps launchpadFigure 2 Hard drive setup with labels

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 5 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        research these types of features will be optimized for fullprivacy

        44 Apple safariThe Apple Safari web browser is primarily used onMaciOS operating systems but is also available forWindows A list of common areas where Safari webbrowsing artifacts can be located is as follows

        plist (Propert List) structure Cookiesplist Bookmarksplist Historyplist WebpageIconsdb Keychainsplist Downloadsplist

        Apples latest version of the Safari web browser forWindows is Safari 517 [11] When Safari launched 60they did not update the Windows versions Most peoplehave assumed that Apple is moving away from Windowscompatibility According to Apple Private Browsing modeensures that web pages are not added to the history listcookie changes are discarded searches are not added to

        the search fields and websites cannot modify informationstored on the computer

        5 Portable softwareIn this section we discuss several major web browsersthat are made available in portable formats and wereused for this research

        51 Portable application and web browsersTo allow for certain portable browsers to work a freeprogram called PortableApps [12] was used for thisresearch PortableApps is similar to the previouslymentioned U3 Launchpad in that it allows you totake portable applications with you as you go It isbased on an open source platform and will work withalmost any portable storage device Figure 1 showshow the launchpad is structured In our study theapplication was installed on a USB flash drive Threeportable web browsers were selected through PortableAppsMozilla Firefox Portable 1801 [13] Google ChromePortable 240131252 [14] and Opera Portable 1212[15] The reason Apple Safari Portable was not selectedbecause it was not in fact portable The most updatedversion located was not a standalone executable programand it had to be installed onto the machine According

        Figure 3 DaemonFS monitoring example

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 6 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        to Mozilla the Portable Edition leaves no personalinformation behind on the machine it runs on [13]All the portable browsers were essentially designedfor users to carry customized browsers without leavingtraces on machines That is why artifacts such as webbrowsing history passwords and auto-fill forms are storedwhere the portable browser installation folder is locatedPrivacy modes can also be enabled to help block flashcookies and other artifacts from storing within theinstallation folder

        6 Implementations and experimentsIn this section we provide a brief overview of privateand portable web browsing sessions that will be analyzedusing computer forensics

        61 Tools and setupThe following tools were used for the assessmentsacquisitions examinations and analysis

        Table 4 Browser analysis during normal browsing sessions

        Browser Primary changes

        Internet explorer 80 Temp File Directory files (Concreated modified and delete

        Google chrome 230127195 Directory ChromeUser DataDefaultSession Storage) files

        Firefox 1701 Directory FirefoxProfiles (Cacmodified and deleted

        Safari 517 Directory AppleComputerSafiles are created modified an

        Hardware

        1- Desktop (PC - forensic workstation - 4-GB RAM) 1- Laptop (PC - forensic workstation - 6-GB RAM) 8ndash160 GB SATA Hard Drives (one dedicated drive

        for lab) 1- USB Flash Drive (8 GB) 1- USB External Drive (1 TB WD Passport) 1- SATA to USB Adapter 1- Tableau USB Write Blocker (IDESATA) Antistatic Bags and Antistatic Wrist Strap

        Software

        Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (64) Internet Explorer Firefox Safari Chrome VMware - virtualization software DaemonFS - file integrity monitoring program Disk Wipe - to replace data on disk with zeros Nirsoft Internet Tools - history cache and

        cookie viewers

        tentIE HistoryIE5 Cookies Recovery Custom Destinations Indexdat) ared

        (Safe Browsing Whitelist Default Cache Current Session DefaultHistoryare created modified and deleted

        he jumpListCache etc) and Win CustomDestinations files are created

        fari (Cache History Webpage Previews Cookies WebpageIconsdb)d deleted

        Table 5 Browser analysis during private browsing sessions

        Private browser Noticeable change

        IE InPrivate Browsing Everything gets deleted when exiting the browser and the entire session is terminated

        Google Chrome Incognito Mode Safe Browsing databases Cookies and History are modified no changes during session but thechrome_shutdown_mstxt is replaced with a new timestamp when session ends

        Firefox Private Browsing Safe Browsing database gets modified nothing appears to be written while surfing but whensession ends some FirefoxProfile files are modified

        Safari Private Browsing Only NTuserdat appears to be modified

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 7 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        Live View - Java based tool to convert dd to vmdk PortableApps - portable application Launchpad Firefox Portable Chrome Portable Opera Portable FTK Imager - used to create forensic images FTK Imager Lite - portable version AccessData FTK version 32 (Licensed) - used to

        analyze forensic images and organize information

        The key to our research was for us to conduct a stan-dardized test across multiple controlled environmentsTherefore all the experiments were handled in a forensic-ally sound manner as if we were handling real evidencePhotographs were taken forensic images were createdprocedures were properly documented and evidence wassafely preservedWe began by taking every hard drive and removing

        residual data using Disk Wipe [16] Each disk wasconnected to a secondary forensic workstation (laptop)through a SATA to USB Adapter The Disk Wipe toolprovides several different wiping options and writes overdata with zeros The first disk was tested by examining itforensically after wiping it with only one pass Sincethere was some residual data that was found a DoDAlgorithm was selected next to wipe the disk using threepasses this method proved to be more efficient Afterevery disk was successfully wiped each one was installedwith Windows 7 Professional - 64 bits The 64-bitversion was used so that more random-access memory(RAM) could later be testedNext each disk was installed with only one specific

        Internet browser pre-loaded from an external hard driveexcept for the portable applications The web browsersinstalled were Microsoft Internet Explorer Mozilla FirefoxApple Safari and Google Chrome Each browser wasconfigured to launch automatically into private browsing

        Table 6 Browser analysis using portable web browsers

        Portable browser Host machine activity

        Opera portable Temp files appear to be created on disk a

        Firefox portable MozillaRoaming directory was modified

        Google chrome portable Folder called GoogleChromePortable hadand Portable Chrome Cache

        Safari portable Setup files are portable but must be insta

        mode except for Safari which had to be done manually Itis important to note since prior research [1] showedbrowser plug-ins and extensions to cause weakness toprivate browsing sessions none were installed It is alsoimportant to note that everything was pre-configuredbefore connecting to the Internet Figure 2 shows the harddrives being configured and labeled

        62 Preliminary analysisWhile the disks were being properly developed a baselinewas established using a laptop with VMware and a fileintegrity monitoring program called DaemonFS [17] Thisassisted with having a general idea for which areas weremodified and accessed during normal private andportable web browsing sessions Once DaemonFS waslaunched it was set to monitor all activity within thelocal hard drive (root) After the logical parameterwas set each web browser was individually launchedand tested using a series of standardized steps Figure 3shows how the log is generated during activity Thesesteps included article searches image searches videosearches email account logins bank account logins andonline purchase attempts See Tables 4 5 and 6 for results

        63 Private ate browsing experimentsAuthor1 has a background in law enforcement and hasexperience analyzing digital media for a vast array ofcrimes The Internet activities used for these experimentswere adapted from an abundance of information to includepast experience and knowledge It is important to note thatthese principles can still be applied to all aspects ofInternet forensics regardless of whether or not the scoperelates to a crime These types of browsing sessions canvery well be conducted without any criminal intent Theoverall purpose of digital forensics is to help establish and

        nd then are deleted when session ends

        and a few temp files under Local AppData were createddeleted

        files created modified and deleted including Sys32WinevtLogs

        lled on system (not standaloneexe) therefore will not be used for testing

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 8 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        articulate an affirmative link between A (artifact) and B(person place or thing) By collecting and analyzingenough data evidentiary content can be producedTo begin the main experiments each disk was separately

        utilized as a single primary drive Every step was manuallyrecorded with timestamps for future reference points Forthe first four disks only private browsing sessions weretested using the installed web browsers For the purpose ofthese experiments a lsquobrowsing sessionrsquo will refer to allactivity conducted on one specific web browser Once aprivate browsing session was launched the same series ofsteps were performed for each browser Table 7 shows thedetails of these standardized sessionsAfter each browsing session was complete the web

        browser process tree was terminated (verified) and theRAM was dumped into a file using FTK Imager Lite(installed on USB) Not only was the memory dumpedbut Registry files were obtained the pagefilesys wasextracted and an ad1 image file of the RAM wascreated as well The location of the RAM dump was storedon the target machines Desktop due to reasons that willlater be explained This would probably not be preferred ina real setting unless it was absolutely necessary In anyevent it is always important to document the footprintsleft behind on a live environment Initially the data wasextracted to an external hard drive The machine was thenunplugged from the back and the disk was carefullyremoved As noted a few extra things were done topreserve sound results The working memory wasdumped before and after every disk session to ensurethat residual data was not left over in the RAM fromthe session before In addition several Internet toolsfrom Nirsoft [18] such as cache viewer history viewerand cookie viewer were executed after each browsingsession was terminated and yielded negative resultsMeaning nothing could be discovered using these toolsafter private browsing sessions were used

        Table 7 Internet sessions used for experiments

        Website Standardized steps

        Google Search for various images sites and forums targeteand images

        Yahoo Search for various sites and forums targeted for crim

        YouTube Search for how-to videos on different types hacking (

        Gmail Send email with attachments

        Hotmail Send email with attachments

        Yahoo Mail Send email with attachments

        SHSU Mail Send email with attachments

        Online Banking Log into several accounts (stores cookies and certifi

        Ammunition-to-Go Attempt to purchase large amounts (2000+) of am

        Online Firearms Store Search for high capacity magazines and various we

        Craigslist Search for different types of items for sale that mig

        64 Portable browsing experimentThe next three disks were used in conjunction withportable web browsers running from a USB flash driveThe flash drive was installed with a program calledPortableApps Essentially PortableApps allows you torun different programs from a flash drive similar toan OS Start menu After setting up the Launchpad threeportable web browsers were installed on the flash driveMozilla Firefox Portable Google Chrome Portable andOpera Portable Again each hard disk was separately usedas a primary hard drive but this time without any otherweb browsers installed Each portable web browser wasindividually launched while performing the same series ofstandardized steps as the first four disks (Table 7)Whenever a disk was complete it was carefully placed intoan antistatic bag and into a cool dry place for storage Inaddition an antistatic wrist band was used while handlingall internal electronic components

        65 Forensic acquisition and analysisThe last hard disk was developed with Windows 7 andFTK 32 to make it a dedicated computer forensic worksta-tion AccessDatas Forensic Toolkit (FTK) [19] is a court ac-cepted program used for examining computers and mobiledevices at the forensic level Each disk was individuallyconnected to the Desktop using a hardware-based writeblocker (Tableau) to protect any data from being altered bythe computer Digital evidence preservation is the most im-portant factor next to chain of custody when it comes toforensic integrity Using FTK Imager a bit stream image ofeach evidence disk was created as a compressed E01 imagefile and was verified by several different hashes Each imagetook anywhere from 3 to 5 h to complete Next individualimages were forensically examined analyzed and classifiedby FTK 32 One disk image took up to 72 h to process andthe disks with the installed browsers took the longest

        d for criminal activity click on top five links savedownload different files

        inal activity click on top five links savedownload available files

        social media bank accounts and WiFi connections) click on links to open

        cates)

        munition (various high powered rounds) by searching and adding to cart

        apons

        ht be flagged as stolen

        Table 8 Private web browsing artifacts

        Artifacts Discovered Target locations

        Microsoft internet explorer80 (InPrivate browsing)

        Private browsingindicator

        Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo - prior to URL history)$I30 (hellipContentIE5- lsquoinprivate [1]rsquo- prior to list of jpegs) Pagefile

        Browsing history Y Memdump Free space File slack (Temporary Internet Folder RoaminghellipCustomDestinations) SysVol Info $LogFile $J AppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

        Usernamesemailaccounts

        Y Memdump Freespace Temporary Internet Folder UserAppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

        Images Y Memdump (partial photos) Free space (full content) File slack (full content)

        Videos N NA

        Google chrome 230127195(Incognito)

        Incognitoindicators

        Y Memdump ChromehellipInstallerchrome7z amp chromedll (timestamp matches)$I30 (safebrowsing timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser Datachrome_shutdown_mstxt (always updates with timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultExtension Statelog (declarative_rulesincognitodeclaritiveWebRequest- timestamp matches session start) ~SysVol Information (new incognitowindow with timestamps) AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (new incognito window with timestamps) ChromeUserDataSafebrowsingcookiesdb (modified timestamp)

        Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Info (matching timestamps) Pagefilesys (downloaded file)

        Usernamesemailaccounts

        N NA

        Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

        Videos N NA

        Mozilla Firefox 1701(Private browsing)

        Private browsingindicators

        Y Memdump (browsing mode) SysVolume Information (Enter Private Browsingand Windowrsquos User listed below- file timestamp accurate)

        Browsing history Y Memdump Free space- AppDatahellipTemp WinPrefetch (rtf temp file downloaddiscovered) AppDatahellipFirefoxProfiles (blacklistxml- matching timestamps)FirefoxProfiles (file timestamps update)

        Usernamesemailaccounts

        N NA

        Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

        Videos N NA

        Apple Safari 517(Private browsing)

        Private browsingindicators

        Y Memdump ~SysVol Information (comappleSafariPrivateBrowsing timestamp)

        Browsing history Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (URL History) AppDataLocalAppleCompSafariWebpageIconsdbgt gt tables AppDataLocalAppleCompSafari (databasestimestamp updates) AppDatahellipAppleCompSafari amp Preferences(several plist timestamp updates) Pagefile (URLs and modified timestamps update)

        Usernamesemailaccounts

        N NA

        Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

        Videos N NA

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 9 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        Aside from the default processing options in FTKadditional refinements were selected to carve differenttypes of data and parse complex information Once FTKfinished processing the evidence files numerous hourswere spent sifting through the data We found that itwas also beneficial to use a program called Live View[20] to have a better understanding of the artifactsfound Live View is an open source program that canconvert a raw image to a virtual disk The disk must bebooted into safe mode for the virtual machine to workcorrectly without having to activate Windows By usingtwo screens simultaneously one with a live virtual

        environment and the other with the forensic image inFTK it allowed us to fully grasp and understand theconnections See Tables 8 and 9 for complete results

        66 Results analysisPrivate browsing modes and portable web browsers doin fact leave incriminating evidence but it depends onthe browser Some web browsers left enough informationto establish an affirmative link and some did not Out ofthe four major web browsers Internet Explorer providedthe most residual artifacts but not where commonartifacts are typically sought This was fairly consistent

        Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

        Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

        Google chromeportable - 240131252

        Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

        Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

        Usernamesemailaccounts

        Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

        Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

        Videos N NA

        Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

        Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

        Usernamesemailaccounts

        N NA

        Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

        Videos N NA

        Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

        Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

        Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

        Usernamesemailaccounts

        Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

        Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

        Videos N NA

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

        to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

        Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

        always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

        most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

        view)

        Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

        appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

        Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

        drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

        much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

        them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

        Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

        An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

        7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

        over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

        8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

        Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

        Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

        References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

        browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

        2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

        3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

        4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

        5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

        6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

        7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

        8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

        9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

        10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

        11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

        12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

        13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

        14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

        15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

        16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

        17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

        18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

        19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

        20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

        doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

        Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

        7 Convenient online submission

        7 Rigorous peer review

        7 Immediate publication on acceptance

        7 Open access articles freely available online

        7 High visibility within the fi eld

        7 Retaining the copyright to your article

        Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

        • Abstract
        • 1 Introduction
        • 2 Background definitions
        • 3 Related work
          • 31 Private browsing
          • 32 Portable web browsing
          • 33 Flash drive
            • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
              • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
              • 42 Google chrome
              • 43 Mozilla Firefox
              • 44 Apple safari
                • 5 Portable software
                  • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                    • 6 Implementations and experiments
                      • 61 Tools and setup
                        • Hardware
                        • Software
                          • 62 Preliminary analysis
                          • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                          • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                          • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                          • 66 Results analysis
                          • 67 Additional forensic results
                            • 7 Future work
                            • 8 Conclusion
                            • Competing interests
                            • References

          Figure 1 PortableApps launchpadFigure 2 Hard drive setup with labels

          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 5 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

          research these types of features will be optimized for fullprivacy

          44 Apple safariThe Apple Safari web browser is primarily used onMaciOS operating systems but is also available forWindows A list of common areas where Safari webbrowsing artifacts can be located is as follows

          plist (Propert List) structure Cookiesplist Bookmarksplist Historyplist WebpageIconsdb Keychainsplist Downloadsplist

          Apples latest version of the Safari web browser forWindows is Safari 517 [11] When Safari launched 60they did not update the Windows versions Most peoplehave assumed that Apple is moving away from Windowscompatibility According to Apple Private Browsing modeensures that web pages are not added to the history listcookie changes are discarded searches are not added to

          the search fields and websites cannot modify informationstored on the computer

          5 Portable softwareIn this section we discuss several major web browsersthat are made available in portable formats and wereused for this research

          51 Portable application and web browsersTo allow for certain portable browsers to work a freeprogram called PortableApps [12] was used for thisresearch PortableApps is similar to the previouslymentioned U3 Launchpad in that it allows you totake portable applications with you as you go It isbased on an open source platform and will work withalmost any portable storage device Figure 1 showshow the launchpad is structured In our study theapplication was installed on a USB flash drive Threeportable web browsers were selected through PortableAppsMozilla Firefox Portable 1801 [13] Google ChromePortable 240131252 [14] and Opera Portable 1212[15] The reason Apple Safari Portable was not selectedbecause it was not in fact portable The most updatedversion located was not a standalone executable programand it had to be installed onto the machine According

          Figure 3 DaemonFS monitoring example

          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 6 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

          to Mozilla the Portable Edition leaves no personalinformation behind on the machine it runs on [13]All the portable browsers were essentially designedfor users to carry customized browsers without leavingtraces on machines That is why artifacts such as webbrowsing history passwords and auto-fill forms are storedwhere the portable browser installation folder is locatedPrivacy modes can also be enabled to help block flashcookies and other artifacts from storing within theinstallation folder

          6 Implementations and experimentsIn this section we provide a brief overview of privateand portable web browsing sessions that will be analyzedusing computer forensics

          61 Tools and setupThe following tools were used for the assessmentsacquisitions examinations and analysis

          Table 4 Browser analysis during normal browsing sessions

          Browser Primary changes

          Internet explorer 80 Temp File Directory files (Concreated modified and delete

          Google chrome 230127195 Directory ChromeUser DataDefaultSession Storage) files

          Firefox 1701 Directory FirefoxProfiles (Cacmodified and deleted

          Safari 517 Directory AppleComputerSafiles are created modified an

          Hardware

          1- Desktop (PC - forensic workstation - 4-GB RAM) 1- Laptop (PC - forensic workstation - 6-GB RAM) 8ndash160 GB SATA Hard Drives (one dedicated drive

          for lab) 1- USB Flash Drive (8 GB) 1- USB External Drive (1 TB WD Passport) 1- SATA to USB Adapter 1- Tableau USB Write Blocker (IDESATA) Antistatic Bags and Antistatic Wrist Strap

          Software

          Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (64) Internet Explorer Firefox Safari Chrome VMware - virtualization software DaemonFS - file integrity monitoring program Disk Wipe - to replace data on disk with zeros Nirsoft Internet Tools - history cache and

          cookie viewers

          tentIE HistoryIE5 Cookies Recovery Custom Destinations Indexdat) ared

          (Safe Browsing Whitelist Default Cache Current Session DefaultHistoryare created modified and deleted

          he jumpListCache etc) and Win CustomDestinations files are created

          fari (Cache History Webpage Previews Cookies WebpageIconsdb)d deleted

          Table 5 Browser analysis during private browsing sessions

          Private browser Noticeable change

          IE InPrivate Browsing Everything gets deleted when exiting the browser and the entire session is terminated

          Google Chrome Incognito Mode Safe Browsing databases Cookies and History are modified no changes during session but thechrome_shutdown_mstxt is replaced with a new timestamp when session ends

          Firefox Private Browsing Safe Browsing database gets modified nothing appears to be written while surfing but whensession ends some FirefoxProfile files are modified

          Safari Private Browsing Only NTuserdat appears to be modified

          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 7 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

          Live View - Java based tool to convert dd to vmdk PortableApps - portable application Launchpad Firefox Portable Chrome Portable Opera Portable FTK Imager - used to create forensic images FTK Imager Lite - portable version AccessData FTK version 32 (Licensed) - used to

          analyze forensic images and organize information

          The key to our research was for us to conduct a stan-dardized test across multiple controlled environmentsTherefore all the experiments were handled in a forensic-ally sound manner as if we were handling real evidencePhotographs were taken forensic images were createdprocedures were properly documented and evidence wassafely preservedWe began by taking every hard drive and removing

          residual data using Disk Wipe [16] Each disk wasconnected to a secondary forensic workstation (laptop)through a SATA to USB Adapter The Disk Wipe toolprovides several different wiping options and writes overdata with zeros The first disk was tested by examining itforensically after wiping it with only one pass Sincethere was some residual data that was found a DoDAlgorithm was selected next to wipe the disk using threepasses this method proved to be more efficient Afterevery disk was successfully wiped each one was installedwith Windows 7 Professional - 64 bits The 64-bitversion was used so that more random-access memory(RAM) could later be testedNext each disk was installed with only one specific

          Internet browser pre-loaded from an external hard driveexcept for the portable applications The web browsersinstalled were Microsoft Internet Explorer Mozilla FirefoxApple Safari and Google Chrome Each browser wasconfigured to launch automatically into private browsing

          Table 6 Browser analysis using portable web browsers

          Portable browser Host machine activity

          Opera portable Temp files appear to be created on disk a

          Firefox portable MozillaRoaming directory was modified

          Google chrome portable Folder called GoogleChromePortable hadand Portable Chrome Cache

          Safari portable Setup files are portable but must be insta

          mode except for Safari which had to be done manually Itis important to note since prior research [1] showedbrowser plug-ins and extensions to cause weakness toprivate browsing sessions none were installed It is alsoimportant to note that everything was pre-configuredbefore connecting to the Internet Figure 2 shows the harddrives being configured and labeled

          62 Preliminary analysisWhile the disks were being properly developed a baselinewas established using a laptop with VMware and a fileintegrity monitoring program called DaemonFS [17] Thisassisted with having a general idea for which areas weremodified and accessed during normal private andportable web browsing sessions Once DaemonFS waslaunched it was set to monitor all activity within thelocal hard drive (root) After the logical parameterwas set each web browser was individually launchedand tested using a series of standardized steps Figure 3shows how the log is generated during activity Thesesteps included article searches image searches videosearches email account logins bank account logins andonline purchase attempts See Tables 4 5 and 6 for results

          63 Private ate browsing experimentsAuthor1 has a background in law enforcement and hasexperience analyzing digital media for a vast array ofcrimes The Internet activities used for these experimentswere adapted from an abundance of information to includepast experience and knowledge It is important to note thatthese principles can still be applied to all aspects ofInternet forensics regardless of whether or not the scoperelates to a crime These types of browsing sessions canvery well be conducted without any criminal intent Theoverall purpose of digital forensics is to help establish and

          nd then are deleted when session ends

          and a few temp files under Local AppData were createddeleted

          files created modified and deleted including Sys32WinevtLogs

          lled on system (not standaloneexe) therefore will not be used for testing

          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 8 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

          articulate an affirmative link between A (artifact) and B(person place or thing) By collecting and analyzingenough data evidentiary content can be producedTo begin the main experiments each disk was separately

          utilized as a single primary drive Every step was manuallyrecorded with timestamps for future reference points Forthe first four disks only private browsing sessions weretested using the installed web browsers For the purpose ofthese experiments a lsquobrowsing sessionrsquo will refer to allactivity conducted on one specific web browser Once aprivate browsing session was launched the same series ofsteps were performed for each browser Table 7 shows thedetails of these standardized sessionsAfter each browsing session was complete the web

          browser process tree was terminated (verified) and theRAM was dumped into a file using FTK Imager Lite(installed on USB) Not only was the memory dumpedbut Registry files were obtained the pagefilesys wasextracted and an ad1 image file of the RAM wascreated as well The location of the RAM dump was storedon the target machines Desktop due to reasons that willlater be explained This would probably not be preferred ina real setting unless it was absolutely necessary In anyevent it is always important to document the footprintsleft behind on a live environment Initially the data wasextracted to an external hard drive The machine was thenunplugged from the back and the disk was carefullyremoved As noted a few extra things were done topreserve sound results The working memory wasdumped before and after every disk session to ensurethat residual data was not left over in the RAM fromthe session before In addition several Internet toolsfrom Nirsoft [18] such as cache viewer history viewerand cookie viewer were executed after each browsingsession was terminated and yielded negative resultsMeaning nothing could be discovered using these toolsafter private browsing sessions were used

          Table 7 Internet sessions used for experiments

          Website Standardized steps

          Google Search for various images sites and forums targeteand images

          Yahoo Search for various sites and forums targeted for crim

          YouTube Search for how-to videos on different types hacking (

          Gmail Send email with attachments

          Hotmail Send email with attachments

          Yahoo Mail Send email with attachments

          SHSU Mail Send email with attachments

          Online Banking Log into several accounts (stores cookies and certifi

          Ammunition-to-Go Attempt to purchase large amounts (2000+) of am

          Online Firearms Store Search for high capacity magazines and various we

          Craigslist Search for different types of items for sale that mig

          64 Portable browsing experimentThe next three disks were used in conjunction withportable web browsers running from a USB flash driveThe flash drive was installed with a program calledPortableApps Essentially PortableApps allows you torun different programs from a flash drive similar toan OS Start menu After setting up the Launchpad threeportable web browsers were installed on the flash driveMozilla Firefox Portable Google Chrome Portable andOpera Portable Again each hard disk was separately usedas a primary hard drive but this time without any otherweb browsers installed Each portable web browser wasindividually launched while performing the same series ofstandardized steps as the first four disks (Table 7)Whenever a disk was complete it was carefully placed intoan antistatic bag and into a cool dry place for storage Inaddition an antistatic wrist band was used while handlingall internal electronic components

          65 Forensic acquisition and analysisThe last hard disk was developed with Windows 7 andFTK 32 to make it a dedicated computer forensic worksta-tion AccessDatas Forensic Toolkit (FTK) [19] is a court ac-cepted program used for examining computers and mobiledevices at the forensic level Each disk was individuallyconnected to the Desktop using a hardware-based writeblocker (Tableau) to protect any data from being altered bythe computer Digital evidence preservation is the most im-portant factor next to chain of custody when it comes toforensic integrity Using FTK Imager a bit stream image ofeach evidence disk was created as a compressed E01 imagefile and was verified by several different hashes Each imagetook anywhere from 3 to 5 h to complete Next individualimages were forensically examined analyzed and classifiedby FTK 32 One disk image took up to 72 h to process andthe disks with the installed browsers took the longest

          d for criminal activity click on top five links savedownload different files

          inal activity click on top five links savedownload available files

          social media bank accounts and WiFi connections) click on links to open

          cates)

          munition (various high powered rounds) by searching and adding to cart

          apons

          ht be flagged as stolen

          Table 8 Private web browsing artifacts

          Artifacts Discovered Target locations

          Microsoft internet explorer80 (InPrivate browsing)

          Private browsingindicator

          Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo - prior to URL history)$I30 (hellipContentIE5- lsquoinprivate [1]rsquo- prior to list of jpegs) Pagefile

          Browsing history Y Memdump Free space File slack (Temporary Internet Folder RoaminghellipCustomDestinations) SysVol Info $LogFile $J AppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

          Usernamesemailaccounts

          Y Memdump Freespace Temporary Internet Folder UserAppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

          Images Y Memdump (partial photos) Free space (full content) File slack (full content)

          Videos N NA

          Google chrome 230127195(Incognito)

          Incognitoindicators

          Y Memdump ChromehellipInstallerchrome7z amp chromedll (timestamp matches)$I30 (safebrowsing timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser Datachrome_shutdown_mstxt (always updates with timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultExtension Statelog (declarative_rulesincognitodeclaritiveWebRequest- timestamp matches session start) ~SysVol Information (new incognitowindow with timestamps) AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (new incognito window with timestamps) ChromeUserDataSafebrowsingcookiesdb (modified timestamp)

          Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Info (matching timestamps) Pagefilesys (downloaded file)

          Usernamesemailaccounts

          N NA

          Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

          Videos N NA

          Mozilla Firefox 1701(Private browsing)

          Private browsingindicators

          Y Memdump (browsing mode) SysVolume Information (Enter Private Browsingand Windowrsquos User listed below- file timestamp accurate)

          Browsing history Y Memdump Free space- AppDatahellipTemp WinPrefetch (rtf temp file downloaddiscovered) AppDatahellipFirefoxProfiles (blacklistxml- matching timestamps)FirefoxProfiles (file timestamps update)

          Usernamesemailaccounts

          N NA

          Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

          Videos N NA

          Apple Safari 517(Private browsing)

          Private browsingindicators

          Y Memdump ~SysVol Information (comappleSafariPrivateBrowsing timestamp)

          Browsing history Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (URL History) AppDataLocalAppleCompSafariWebpageIconsdbgt gt tables AppDataLocalAppleCompSafari (databasestimestamp updates) AppDatahellipAppleCompSafari amp Preferences(several plist timestamp updates) Pagefile (URLs and modified timestamps update)

          Usernamesemailaccounts

          N NA

          Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

          Videos N NA

          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 9 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

          Aside from the default processing options in FTKadditional refinements were selected to carve differenttypes of data and parse complex information Once FTKfinished processing the evidence files numerous hourswere spent sifting through the data We found that itwas also beneficial to use a program called Live View[20] to have a better understanding of the artifactsfound Live View is an open source program that canconvert a raw image to a virtual disk The disk must bebooted into safe mode for the virtual machine to workcorrectly without having to activate Windows By usingtwo screens simultaneously one with a live virtual

          environment and the other with the forensic image inFTK it allowed us to fully grasp and understand theconnections See Tables 8 and 9 for complete results

          66 Results analysisPrivate browsing modes and portable web browsers doin fact leave incriminating evidence but it depends onthe browser Some web browsers left enough informationto establish an affirmative link and some did not Out ofthe four major web browsers Internet Explorer providedthe most residual artifacts but not where commonartifacts are typically sought This was fairly consistent

          Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

          Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

          Google chromeportable - 240131252

          Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

          Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

          Usernamesemailaccounts

          Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

          Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

          Videos N NA

          Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

          Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

          Usernamesemailaccounts

          N NA

          Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

          Videos N NA

          Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

          Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

          Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

          Usernamesemailaccounts

          Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

          Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

          Videos N NA

          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

          with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

          to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

          Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

          always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

          most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

          view)

          Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

          for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

          appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

          Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

          drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

          much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

          them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

          Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

          67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

          An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

          7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

          over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

          8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

          Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

          Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

          References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

          browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

          2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

          3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

          4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

          5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

          6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

          7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

          8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

          9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

          10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

          11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

          12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

          13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

          14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

          15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

          16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

          17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

          18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

          19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

          20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

          doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

          Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

          7 Convenient online submission

          7 Rigorous peer review

          7 Immediate publication on acceptance

          7 Open access articles freely available online

          7 High visibility within the fi eld

          7 Retaining the copyright to your article

          Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

          • Abstract
          • 1 Introduction
          • 2 Background definitions
          • 3 Related work
            • 31 Private browsing
            • 32 Portable web browsing
            • 33 Flash drive
              • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
                • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
                • 42 Google chrome
                • 43 Mozilla Firefox
                • 44 Apple safari
                  • 5 Portable software
                    • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                      • 6 Implementations and experiments
                        • 61 Tools and setup
                          • Hardware
                          • Software
                            • 62 Preliminary analysis
                            • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                            • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                            • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                            • 66 Results analysis
                            • 67 Additional forensic results
                              • 7 Future work
                              • 8 Conclusion
                              • Competing interests
                              • References

            Figure 3 DaemonFS monitoring example

            Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 6 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

            to Mozilla the Portable Edition leaves no personalinformation behind on the machine it runs on [13]All the portable browsers were essentially designedfor users to carry customized browsers without leavingtraces on machines That is why artifacts such as webbrowsing history passwords and auto-fill forms are storedwhere the portable browser installation folder is locatedPrivacy modes can also be enabled to help block flashcookies and other artifacts from storing within theinstallation folder

            6 Implementations and experimentsIn this section we provide a brief overview of privateand portable web browsing sessions that will be analyzedusing computer forensics

            61 Tools and setupThe following tools were used for the assessmentsacquisitions examinations and analysis

            Table 4 Browser analysis during normal browsing sessions

            Browser Primary changes

            Internet explorer 80 Temp File Directory files (Concreated modified and delete

            Google chrome 230127195 Directory ChromeUser DataDefaultSession Storage) files

            Firefox 1701 Directory FirefoxProfiles (Cacmodified and deleted

            Safari 517 Directory AppleComputerSafiles are created modified an

            Hardware

            1- Desktop (PC - forensic workstation - 4-GB RAM) 1- Laptop (PC - forensic workstation - 6-GB RAM) 8ndash160 GB SATA Hard Drives (one dedicated drive

            for lab) 1- USB Flash Drive (8 GB) 1- USB External Drive (1 TB WD Passport) 1- SATA to USB Adapter 1- Tableau USB Write Blocker (IDESATA) Antistatic Bags and Antistatic Wrist Strap

            Software

            Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (64) Internet Explorer Firefox Safari Chrome VMware - virtualization software DaemonFS - file integrity monitoring program Disk Wipe - to replace data on disk with zeros Nirsoft Internet Tools - history cache and

            cookie viewers

            tentIE HistoryIE5 Cookies Recovery Custom Destinations Indexdat) ared

            (Safe Browsing Whitelist Default Cache Current Session DefaultHistoryare created modified and deleted

            he jumpListCache etc) and Win CustomDestinations files are created

            fari (Cache History Webpage Previews Cookies WebpageIconsdb)d deleted

            Table 5 Browser analysis during private browsing sessions

            Private browser Noticeable change

            IE InPrivate Browsing Everything gets deleted when exiting the browser and the entire session is terminated

            Google Chrome Incognito Mode Safe Browsing databases Cookies and History are modified no changes during session but thechrome_shutdown_mstxt is replaced with a new timestamp when session ends

            Firefox Private Browsing Safe Browsing database gets modified nothing appears to be written while surfing but whensession ends some FirefoxProfile files are modified

            Safari Private Browsing Only NTuserdat appears to be modified

            Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 7 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

            Live View - Java based tool to convert dd to vmdk PortableApps - portable application Launchpad Firefox Portable Chrome Portable Opera Portable FTK Imager - used to create forensic images FTK Imager Lite - portable version AccessData FTK version 32 (Licensed) - used to

            analyze forensic images and organize information

            The key to our research was for us to conduct a stan-dardized test across multiple controlled environmentsTherefore all the experiments were handled in a forensic-ally sound manner as if we were handling real evidencePhotographs were taken forensic images were createdprocedures were properly documented and evidence wassafely preservedWe began by taking every hard drive and removing

            residual data using Disk Wipe [16] Each disk wasconnected to a secondary forensic workstation (laptop)through a SATA to USB Adapter The Disk Wipe toolprovides several different wiping options and writes overdata with zeros The first disk was tested by examining itforensically after wiping it with only one pass Sincethere was some residual data that was found a DoDAlgorithm was selected next to wipe the disk using threepasses this method proved to be more efficient Afterevery disk was successfully wiped each one was installedwith Windows 7 Professional - 64 bits The 64-bitversion was used so that more random-access memory(RAM) could later be testedNext each disk was installed with only one specific

            Internet browser pre-loaded from an external hard driveexcept for the portable applications The web browsersinstalled were Microsoft Internet Explorer Mozilla FirefoxApple Safari and Google Chrome Each browser wasconfigured to launch automatically into private browsing

            Table 6 Browser analysis using portable web browsers

            Portable browser Host machine activity

            Opera portable Temp files appear to be created on disk a

            Firefox portable MozillaRoaming directory was modified

            Google chrome portable Folder called GoogleChromePortable hadand Portable Chrome Cache

            Safari portable Setup files are portable but must be insta

            mode except for Safari which had to be done manually Itis important to note since prior research [1] showedbrowser plug-ins and extensions to cause weakness toprivate browsing sessions none were installed It is alsoimportant to note that everything was pre-configuredbefore connecting to the Internet Figure 2 shows the harddrives being configured and labeled

            62 Preliminary analysisWhile the disks were being properly developed a baselinewas established using a laptop with VMware and a fileintegrity monitoring program called DaemonFS [17] Thisassisted with having a general idea for which areas weremodified and accessed during normal private andportable web browsing sessions Once DaemonFS waslaunched it was set to monitor all activity within thelocal hard drive (root) After the logical parameterwas set each web browser was individually launchedand tested using a series of standardized steps Figure 3shows how the log is generated during activity Thesesteps included article searches image searches videosearches email account logins bank account logins andonline purchase attempts See Tables 4 5 and 6 for results

            63 Private ate browsing experimentsAuthor1 has a background in law enforcement and hasexperience analyzing digital media for a vast array ofcrimes The Internet activities used for these experimentswere adapted from an abundance of information to includepast experience and knowledge It is important to note thatthese principles can still be applied to all aspects ofInternet forensics regardless of whether or not the scoperelates to a crime These types of browsing sessions canvery well be conducted without any criminal intent Theoverall purpose of digital forensics is to help establish and

            nd then are deleted when session ends

            and a few temp files under Local AppData were createddeleted

            files created modified and deleted including Sys32WinevtLogs

            lled on system (not standaloneexe) therefore will not be used for testing

            Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 8 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

            articulate an affirmative link between A (artifact) and B(person place or thing) By collecting and analyzingenough data evidentiary content can be producedTo begin the main experiments each disk was separately

            utilized as a single primary drive Every step was manuallyrecorded with timestamps for future reference points Forthe first four disks only private browsing sessions weretested using the installed web browsers For the purpose ofthese experiments a lsquobrowsing sessionrsquo will refer to allactivity conducted on one specific web browser Once aprivate browsing session was launched the same series ofsteps were performed for each browser Table 7 shows thedetails of these standardized sessionsAfter each browsing session was complete the web

            browser process tree was terminated (verified) and theRAM was dumped into a file using FTK Imager Lite(installed on USB) Not only was the memory dumpedbut Registry files were obtained the pagefilesys wasextracted and an ad1 image file of the RAM wascreated as well The location of the RAM dump was storedon the target machines Desktop due to reasons that willlater be explained This would probably not be preferred ina real setting unless it was absolutely necessary In anyevent it is always important to document the footprintsleft behind on a live environment Initially the data wasextracted to an external hard drive The machine was thenunplugged from the back and the disk was carefullyremoved As noted a few extra things were done topreserve sound results The working memory wasdumped before and after every disk session to ensurethat residual data was not left over in the RAM fromthe session before In addition several Internet toolsfrom Nirsoft [18] such as cache viewer history viewerand cookie viewer were executed after each browsingsession was terminated and yielded negative resultsMeaning nothing could be discovered using these toolsafter private browsing sessions were used

            Table 7 Internet sessions used for experiments

            Website Standardized steps

            Google Search for various images sites and forums targeteand images

            Yahoo Search for various sites and forums targeted for crim

            YouTube Search for how-to videos on different types hacking (

            Gmail Send email with attachments

            Hotmail Send email with attachments

            Yahoo Mail Send email with attachments

            SHSU Mail Send email with attachments

            Online Banking Log into several accounts (stores cookies and certifi

            Ammunition-to-Go Attempt to purchase large amounts (2000+) of am

            Online Firearms Store Search for high capacity magazines and various we

            Craigslist Search for different types of items for sale that mig

            64 Portable browsing experimentThe next three disks were used in conjunction withportable web browsers running from a USB flash driveThe flash drive was installed with a program calledPortableApps Essentially PortableApps allows you torun different programs from a flash drive similar toan OS Start menu After setting up the Launchpad threeportable web browsers were installed on the flash driveMozilla Firefox Portable Google Chrome Portable andOpera Portable Again each hard disk was separately usedas a primary hard drive but this time without any otherweb browsers installed Each portable web browser wasindividually launched while performing the same series ofstandardized steps as the first four disks (Table 7)Whenever a disk was complete it was carefully placed intoan antistatic bag and into a cool dry place for storage Inaddition an antistatic wrist band was used while handlingall internal electronic components

            65 Forensic acquisition and analysisThe last hard disk was developed with Windows 7 andFTK 32 to make it a dedicated computer forensic worksta-tion AccessDatas Forensic Toolkit (FTK) [19] is a court ac-cepted program used for examining computers and mobiledevices at the forensic level Each disk was individuallyconnected to the Desktop using a hardware-based writeblocker (Tableau) to protect any data from being altered bythe computer Digital evidence preservation is the most im-portant factor next to chain of custody when it comes toforensic integrity Using FTK Imager a bit stream image ofeach evidence disk was created as a compressed E01 imagefile and was verified by several different hashes Each imagetook anywhere from 3 to 5 h to complete Next individualimages were forensically examined analyzed and classifiedby FTK 32 One disk image took up to 72 h to process andthe disks with the installed browsers took the longest

            d for criminal activity click on top five links savedownload different files

            inal activity click on top five links savedownload available files

            social media bank accounts and WiFi connections) click on links to open

            cates)

            munition (various high powered rounds) by searching and adding to cart

            apons

            ht be flagged as stolen

            Table 8 Private web browsing artifacts

            Artifacts Discovered Target locations

            Microsoft internet explorer80 (InPrivate browsing)

            Private browsingindicator

            Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo - prior to URL history)$I30 (hellipContentIE5- lsquoinprivate [1]rsquo- prior to list of jpegs) Pagefile

            Browsing history Y Memdump Free space File slack (Temporary Internet Folder RoaminghellipCustomDestinations) SysVol Info $LogFile $J AppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

            Usernamesemailaccounts

            Y Memdump Freespace Temporary Internet Folder UserAppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

            Images Y Memdump (partial photos) Free space (full content) File slack (full content)

            Videos N NA

            Google chrome 230127195(Incognito)

            Incognitoindicators

            Y Memdump ChromehellipInstallerchrome7z amp chromedll (timestamp matches)$I30 (safebrowsing timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser Datachrome_shutdown_mstxt (always updates with timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultExtension Statelog (declarative_rulesincognitodeclaritiveWebRequest- timestamp matches session start) ~SysVol Information (new incognitowindow with timestamps) AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (new incognito window with timestamps) ChromeUserDataSafebrowsingcookiesdb (modified timestamp)

            Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Info (matching timestamps) Pagefilesys (downloaded file)

            Usernamesemailaccounts

            N NA

            Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

            Videos N NA

            Mozilla Firefox 1701(Private browsing)

            Private browsingindicators

            Y Memdump (browsing mode) SysVolume Information (Enter Private Browsingand Windowrsquos User listed below- file timestamp accurate)

            Browsing history Y Memdump Free space- AppDatahellipTemp WinPrefetch (rtf temp file downloaddiscovered) AppDatahellipFirefoxProfiles (blacklistxml- matching timestamps)FirefoxProfiles (file timestamps update)

            Usernamesemailaccounts

            N NA

            Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

            Videos N NA

            Apple Safari 517(Private browsing)

            Private browsingindicators

            Y Memdump ~SysVol Information (comappleSafariPrivateBrowsing timestamp)

            Browsing history Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (URL History) AppDataLocalAppleCompSafariWebpageIconsdbgt gt tables AppDataLocalAppleCompSafari (databasestimestamp updates) AppDatahellipAppleCompSafari amp Preferences(several plist timestamp updates) Pagefile (URLs and modified timestamps update)

            Usernamesemailaccounts

            N NA

            Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

            Videos N NA

            Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 9 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

            Aside from the default processing options in FTKadditional refinements were selected to carve differenttypes of data and parse complex information Once FTKfinished processing the evidence files numerous hourswere spent sifting through the data We found that itwas also beneficial to use a program called Live View[20] to have a better understanding of the artifactsfound Live View is an open source program that canconvert a raw image to a virtual disk The disk must bebooted into safe mode for the virtual machine to workcorrectly without having to activate Windows By usingtwo screens simultaneously one with a live virtual

            environment and the other with the forensic image inFTK it allowed us to fully grasp and understand theconnections See Tables 8 and 9 for complete results

            66 Results analysisPrivate browsing modes and portable web browsers doin fact leave incriminating evidence but it depends onthe browser Some web browsers left enough informationto establish an affirmative link and some did not Out ofthe four major web browsers Internet Explorer providedthe most residual artifacts but not where commonartifacts are typically sought This was fairly consistent

            Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

            Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

            Google chromeportable - 240131252

            Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

            Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

            Usernamesemailaccounts

            Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

            Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

            Videos N NA

            Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

            Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

            Usernamesemailaccounts

            N NA

            Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

            Videos N NA

            Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

            Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

            Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

            Usernamesemailaccounts

            Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

            Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

            Videos N NA

            Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

            with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

            to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

            Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

            always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

            most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

            view)

            Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

            Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

            for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

            appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

            Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

            drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

            much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

            them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

            Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

            Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

            67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

            An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

            7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

            over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

            8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

            Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

            Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

            Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

            References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

            browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

            2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

            3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

            4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

            5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

            6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

            7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

            8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

            9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

            10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

            11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

            12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

            13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

            14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

            15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

            16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

            17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

            18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

            19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

            20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

            doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

            Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

            7 Convenient online submission

            7 Rigorous peer review

            7 Immediate publication on acceptance

            7 Open access articles freely available online

            7 High visibility within the fi eld

            7 Retaining the copyright to your article

            Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

            • Abstract
            • 1 Introduction
            • 2 Background definitions
            • 3 Related work
              • 31 Private browsing
              • 32 Portable web browsing
              • 33 Flash drive
                • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
                  • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
                  • 42 Google chrome
                  • 43 Mozilla Firefox
                  • 44 Apple safari
                    • 5 Portable software
                      • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                        • 6 Implementations and experiments
                          • 61 Tools and setup
                            • Hardware
                            • Software
                              • 62 Preliminary analysis
                              • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                              • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                              • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                              • 66 Results analysis
                              • 67 Additional forensic results
                                • 7 Future work
                                • 8 Conclusion
                                • Competing interests
                                • References

              Table 5 Browser analysis during private browsing sessions

              Private browser Noticeable change

              IE InPrivate Browsing Everything gets deleted when exiting the browser and the entire session is terminated

              Google Chrome Incognito Mode Safe Browsing databases Cookies and History are modified no changes during session but thechrome_shutdown_mstxt is replaced with a new timestamp when session ends

              Firefox Private Browsing Safe Browsing database gets modified nothing appears to be written while surfing but whensession ends some FirefoxProfile files are modified

              Safari Private Browsing Only NTuserdat appears to be modified

              Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 7 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

              Live View - Java based tool to convert dd to vmdk PortableApps - portable application Launchpad Firefox Portable Chrome Portable Opera Portable FTK Imager - used to create forensic images FTK Imager Lite - portable version AccessData FTK version 32 (Licensed) - used to

              analyze forensic images and organize information

              The key to our research was for us to conduct a stan-dardized test across multiple controlled environmentsTherefore all the experiments were handled in a forensic-ally sound manner as if we were handling real evidencePhotographs were taken forensic images were createdprocedures were properly documented and evidence wassafely preservedWe began by taking every hard drive and removing

              residual data using Disk Wipe [16] Each disk wasconnected to a secondary forensic workstation (laptop)through a SATA to USB Adapter The Disk Wipe toolprovides several different wiping options and writes overdata with zeros The first disk was tested by examining itforensically after wiping it with only one pass Sincethere was some residual data that was found a DoDAlgorithm was selected next to wipe the disk using threepasses this method proved to be more efficient Afterevery disk was successfully wiped each one was installedwith Windows 7 Professional - 64 bits The 64-bitversion was used so that more random-access memory(RAM) could later be testedNext each disk was installed with only one specific

              Internet browser pre-loaded from an external hard driveexcept for the portable applications The web browsersinstalled were Microsoft Internet Explorer Mozilla FirefoxApple Safari and Google Chrome Each browser wasconfigured to launch automatically into private browsing

              Table 6 Browser analysis using portable web browsers

              Portable browser Host machine activity

              Opera portable Temp files appear to be created on disk a

              Firefox portable MozillaRoaming directory was modified

              Google chrome portable Folder called GoogleChromePortable hadand Portable Chrome Cache

              Safari portable Setup files are portable but must be insta

              mode except for Safari which had to be done manually Itis important to note since prior research [1] showedbrowser plug-ins and extensions to cause weakness toprivate browsing sessions none were installed It is alsoimportant to note that everything was pre-configuredbefore connecting to the Internet Figure 2 shows the harddrives being configured and labeled

              62 Preliminary analysisWhile the disks were being properly developed a baselinewas established using a laptop with VMware and a fileintegrity monitoring program called DaemonFS [17] Thisassisted with having a general idea for which areas weremodified and accessed during normal private andportable web browsing sessions Once DaemonFS waslaunched it was set to monitor all activity within thelocal hard drive (root) After the logical parameterwas set each web browser was individually launchedand tested using a series of standardized steps Figure 3shows how the log is generated during activity Thesesteps included article searches image searches videosearches email account logins bank account logins andonline purchase attempts See Tables 4 5 and 6 for results

              63 Private ate browsing experimentsAuthor1 has a background in law enforcement and hasexperience analyzing digital media for a vast array ofcrimes The Internet activities used for these experimentswere adapted from an abundance of information to includepast experience and knowledge It is important to note thatthese principles can still be applied to all aspects ofInternet forensics regardless of whether or not the scoperelates to a crime These types of browsing sessions canvery well be conducted without any criminal intent Theoverall purpose of digital forensics is to help establish and

              nd then are deleted when session ends

              and a few temp files under Local AppData were createddeleted

              files created modified and deleted including Sys32WinevtLogs

              lled on system (not standaloneexe) therefore will not be used for testing

              Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 8 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

              articulate an affirmative link between A (artifact) and B(person place or thing) By collecting and analyzingenough data evidentiary content can be producedTo begin the main experiments each disk was separately

              utilized as a single primary drive Every step was manuallyrecorded with timestamps for future reference points Forthe first four disks only private browsing sessions weretested using the installed web browsers For the purpose ofthese experiments a lsquobrowsing sessionrsquo will refer to allactivity conducted on one specific web browser Once aprivate browsing session was launched the same series ofsteps were performed for each browser Table 7 shows thedetails of these standardized sessionsAfter each browsing session was complete the web

              browser process tree was terminated (verified) and theRAM was dumped into a file using FTK Imager Lite(installed on USB) Not only was the memory dumpedbut Registry files were obtained the pagefilesys wasextracted and an ad1 image file of the RAM wascreated as well The location of the RAM dump was storedon the target machines Desktop due to reasons that willlater be explained This would probably not be preferred ina real setting unless it was absolutely necessary In anyevent it is always important to document the footprintsleft behind on a live environment Initially the data wasextracted to an external hard drive The machine was thenunplugged from the back and the disk was carefullyremoved As noted a few extra things were done topreserve sound results The working memory wasdumped before and after every disk session to ensurethat residual data was not left over in the RAM fromthe session before In addition several Internet toolsfrom Nirsoft [18] such as cache viewer history viewerand cookie viewer were executed after each browsingsession was terminated and yielded negative resultsMeaning nothing could be discovered using these toolsafter private browsing sessions were used

              Table 7 Internet sessions used for experiments

              Website Standardized steps

              Google Search for various images sites and forums targeteand images

              Yahoo Search for various sites and forums targeted for crim

              YouTube Search for how-to videos on different types hacking (

              Gmail Send email with attachments

              Hotmail Send email with attachments

              Yahoo Mail Send email with attachments

              SHSU Mail Send email with attachments

              Online Banking Log into several accounts (stores cookies and certifi

              Ammunition-to-Go Attempt to purchase large amounts (2000+) of am

              Online Firearms Store Search for high capacity magazines and various we

              Craigslist Search for different types of items for sale that mig

              64 Portable browsing experimentThe next three disks were used in conjunction withportable web browsers running from a USB flash driveThe flash drive was installed with a program calledPortableApps Essentially PortableApps allows you torun different programs from a flash drive similar toan OS Start menu After setting up the Launchpad threeportable web browsers were installed on the flash driveMozilla Firefox Portable Google Chrome Portable andOpera Portable Again each hard disk was separately usedas a primary hard drive but this time without any otherweb browsers installed Each portable web browser wasindividually launched while performing the same series ofstandardized steps as the first four disks (Table 7)Whenever a disk was complete it was carefully placed intoan antistatic bag and into a cool dry place for storage Inaddition an antistatic wrist band was used while handlingall internal electronic components

              65 Forensic acquisition and analysisThe last hard disk was developed with Windows 7 andFTK 32 to make it a dedicated computer forensic worksta-tion AccessDatas Forensic Toolkit (FTK) [19] is a court ac-cepted program used for examining computers and mobiledevices at the forensic level Each disk was individuallyconnected to the Desktop using a hardware-based writeblocker (Tableau) to protect any data from being altered bythe computer Digital evidence preservation is the most im-portant factor next to chain of custody when it comes toforensic integrity Using FTK Imager a bit stream image ofeach evidence disk was created as a compressed E01 imagefile and was verified by several different hashes Each imagetook anywhere from 3 to 5 h to complete Next individualimages were forensically examined analyzed and classifiedby FTK 32 One disk image took up to 72 h to process andthe disks with the installed browsers took the longest

              d for criminal activity click on top five links savedownload different files

              inal activity click on top five links savedownload available files

              social media bank accounts and WiFi connections) click on links to open

              cates)

              munition (various high powered rounds) by searching and adding to cart

              apons

              ht be flagged as stolen

              Table 8 Private web browsing artifacts

              Artifacts Discovered Target locations

              Microsoft internet explorer80 (InPrivate browsing)

              Private browsingindicator

              Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo - prior to URL history)$I30 (hellipContentIE5- lsquoinprivate [1]rsquo- prior to list of jpegs) Pagefile

              Browsing history Y Memdump Free space File slack (Temporary Internet Folder RoaminghellipCustomDestinations) SysVol Info $LogFile $J AppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

              Usernamesemailaccounts

              Y Memdump Freespace Temporary Internet Folder UserAppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

              Images Y Memdump (partial photos) Free space (full content) File slack (full content)

              Videos N NA

              Google chrome 230127195(Incognito)

              Incognitoindicators

              Y Memdump ChromehellipInstallerchrome7z amp chromedll (timestamp matches)$I30 (safebrowsing timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser Datachrome_shutdown_mstxt (always updates with timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultExtension Statelog (declarative_rulesincognitodeclaritiveWebRequest- timestamp matches session start) ~SysVol Information (new incognitowindow with timestamps) AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (new incognito window with timestamps) ChromeUserDataSafebrowsingcookiesdb (modified timestamp)

              Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Info (matching timestamps) Pagefilesys (downloaded file)

              Usernamesemailaccounts

              N NA

              Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

              Videos N NA

              Mozilla Firefox 1701(Private browsing)

              Private browsingindicators

              Y Memdump (browsing mode) SysVolume Information (Enter Private Browsingand Windowrsquos User listed below- file timestamp accurate)

              Browsing history Y Memdump Free space- AppDatahellipTemp WinPrefetch (rtf temp file downloaddiscovered) AppDatahellipFirefoxProfiles (blacklistxml- matching timestamps)FirefoxProfiles (file timestamps update)

              Usernamesemailaccounts

              N NA

              Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

              Videos N NA

              Apple Safari 517(Private browsing)

              Private browsingindicators

              Y Memdump ~SysVol Information (comappleSafariPrivateBrowsing timestamp)

              Browsing history Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (URL History) AppDataLocalAppleCompSafariWebpageIconsdbgt gt tables AppDataLocalAppleCompSafari (databasestimestamp updates) AppDatahellipAppleCompSafari amp Preferences(several plist timestamp updates) Pagefile (URLs and modified timestamps update)

              Usernamesemailaccounts

              N NA

              Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

              Videos N NA

              Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 9 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

              Aside from the default processing options in FTKadditional refinements were selected to carve differenttypes of data and parse complex information Once FTKfinished processing the evidence files numerous hourswere spent sifting through the data We found that itwas also beneficial to use a program called Live View[20] to have a better understanding of the artifactsfound Live View is an open source program that canconvert a raw image to a virtual disk The disk must bebooted into safe mode for the virtual machine to workcorrectly without having to activate Windows By usingtwo screens simultaneously one with a live virtual

              environment and the other with the forensic image inFTK it allowed us to fully grasp and understand theconnections See Tables 8 and 9 for complete results

              66 Results analysisPrivate browsing modes and portable web browsers doin fact leave incriminating evidence but it depends onthe browser Some web browsers left enough informationto establish an affirmative link and some did not Out ofthe four major web browsers Internet Explorer providedthe most residual artifacts but not where commonartifacts are typically sought This was fairly consistent

              Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

              Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

              Google chromeportable - 240131252

              Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

              Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

              Usernamesemailaccounts

              Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

              Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

              Videos N NA

              Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

              Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

              Usernamesemailaccounts

              N NA

              Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

              Videos N NA

              Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

              Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

              Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

              Usernamesemailaccounts

              Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

              Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

              Videos N NA

              Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

              with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

              to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

              Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

              always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

              most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

              view)

              Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

              Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

              for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

              appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

              Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

              drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

              much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

              them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

              Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

              Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

              67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

              An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

              7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

              over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

              8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

              Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

              Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

              Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

              References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

              browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

              2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

              3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

              4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

              5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

              6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

              7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

              8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

              9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

              10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

              11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

              12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

              13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

              14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

              15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

              16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

              17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

              18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

              19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

              20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

              doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

              Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

              7 Convenient online submission

              7 Rigorous peer review

              7 Immediate publication on acceptance

              7 Open access articles freely available online

              7 High visibility within the fi eld

              7 Retaining the copyright to your article

              Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

              • Abstract
              • 1 Introduction
              • 2 Background definitions
              • 3 Related work
                • 31 Private browsing
                • 32 Portable web browsing
                • 33 Flash drive
                  • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
                    • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
                    • 42 Google chrome
                    • 43 Mozilla Firefox
                    • 44 Apple safari
                      • 5 Portable software
                        • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                          • 6 Implementations and experiments
                            • 61 Tools and setup
                              • Hardware
                              • Software
                                • 62 Preliminary analysis
                                • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                                • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                                • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                                • 66 Results analysis
                                • 67 Additional forensic results
                                  • 7 Future work
                                  • 8 Conclusion
                                  • Competing interests
                                  • References

                Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 8 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                articulate an affirmative link between A (artifact) and B(person place or thing) By collecting and analyzingenough data evidentiary content can be producedTo begin the main experiments each disk was separately

                utilized as a single primary drive Every step was manuallyrecorded with timestamps for future reference points Forthe first four disks only private browsing sessions weretested using the installed web browsers For the purpose ofthese experiments a lsquobrowsing sessionrsquo will refer to allactivity conducted on one specific web browser Once aprivate browsing session was launched the same series ofsteps were performed for each browser Table 7 shows thedetails of these standardized sessionsAfter each browsing session was complete the web

                browser process tree was terminated (verified) and theRAM was dumped into a file using FTK Imager Lite(installed on USB) Not only was the memory dumpedbut Registry files were obtained the pagefilesys wasextracted and an ad1 image file of the RAM wascreated as well The location of the RAM dump was storedon the target machines Desktop due to reasons that willlater be explained This would probably not be preferred ina real setting unless it was absolutely necessary In anyevent it is always important to document the footprintsleft behind on a live environment Initially the data wasextracted to an external hard drive The machine was thenunplugged from the back and the disk was carefullyremoved As noted a few extra things were done topreserve sound results The working memory wasdumped before and after every disk session to ensurethat residual data was not left over in the RAM fromthe session before In addition several Internet toolsfrom Nirsoft [18] such as cache viewer history viewerand cookie viewer were executed after each browsingsession was terminated and yielded negative resultsMeaning nothing could be discovered using these toolsafter private browsing sessions were used

                Table 7 Internet sessions used for experiments

                Website Standardized steps

                Google Search for various images sites and forums targeteand images

                Yahoo Search for various sites and forums targeted for crim

                YouTube Search for how-to videos on different types hacking (

                Gmail Send email with attachments

                Hotmail Send email with attachments

                Yahoo Mail Send email with attachments

                SHSU Mail Send email with attachments

                Online Banking Log into several accounts (stores cookies and certifi

                Ammunition-to-Go Attempt to purchase large amounts (2000+) of am

                Online Firearms Store Search for high capacity magazines and various we

                Craigslist Search for different types of items for sale that mig

                64 Portable browsing experimentThe next three disks were used in conjunction withportable web browsers running from a USB flash driveThe flash drive was installed with a program calledPortableApps Essentially PortableApps allows you torun different programs from a flash drive similar toan OS Start menu After setting up the Launchpad threeportable web browsers were installed on the flash driveMozilla Firefox Portable Google Chrome Portable andOpera Portable Again each hard disk was separately usedas a primary hard drive but this time without any otherweb browsers installed Each portable web browser wasindividually launched while performing the same series ofstandardized steps as the first four disks (Table 7)Whenever a disk was complete it was carefully placed intoan antistatic bag and into a cool dry place for storage Inaddition an antistatic wrist band was used while handlingall internal electronic components

                65 Forensic acquisition and analysisThe last hard disk was developed with Windows 7 andFTK 32 to make it a dedicated computer forensic worksta-tion AccessDatas Forensic Toolkit (FTK) [19] is a court ac-cepted program used for examining computers and mobiledevices at the forensic level Each disk was individuallyconnected to the Desktop using a hardware-based writeblocker (Tableau) to protect any data from being altered bythe computer Digital evidence preservation is the most im-portant factor next to chain of custody when it comes toforensic integrity Using FTK Imager a bit stream image ofeach evidence disk was created as a compressed E01 imagefile and was verified by several different hashes Each imagetook anywhere from 3 to 5 h to complete Next individualimages were forensically examined analyzed and classifiedby FTK 32 One disk image took up to 72 h to process andthe disks with the installed browsers took the longest

                d for criminal activity click on top five links savedownload different files

                inal activity click on top five links savedownload available files

                social media bank accounts and WiFi connections) click on links to open

                cates)

                munition (various high powered rounds) by searching and adding to cart

                apons

                ht be flagged as stolen

                Table 8 Private web browsing artifacts

                Artifacts Discovered Target locations

                Microsoft internet explorer80 (InPrivate browsing)

                Private browsingindicator

                Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo - prior to URL history)$I30 (hellipContentIE5- lsquoinprivate [1]rsquo- prior to list of jpegs) Pagefile

                Browsing history Y Memdump Free space File slack (Temporary Internet Folder RoaminghellipCustomDestinations) SysVol Info $LogFile $J AppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

                Usernamesemailaccounts

                Y Memdump Freespace Temporary Internet Folder UserAppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

                Images Y Memdump (partial photos) Free space (full content) File slack (full content)

                Videos N NA

                Google chrome 230127195(Incognito)

                Incognitoindicators

                Y Memdump ChromehellipInstallerchrome7z amp chromedll (timestamp matches)$I30 (safebrowsing timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser Datachrome_shutdown_mstxt (always updates with timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultExtension Statelog (declarative_rulesincognitodeclaritiveWebRequest- timestamp matches session start) ~SysVol Information (new incognitowindow with timestamps) AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (new incognito window with timestamps) ChromeUserDataSafebrowsingcookiesdb (modified timestamp)

                Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Info (matching timestamps) Pagefilesys (downloaded file)

                Usernamesemailaccounts

                N NA

                Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

                Videos N NA

                Mozilla Firefox 1701(Private browsing)

                Private browsingindicators

                Y Memdump (browsing mode) SysVolume Information (Enter Private Browsingand Windowrsquos User listed below- file timestamp accurate)

                Browsing history Y Memdump Free space- AppDatahellipTemp WinPrefetch (rtf temp file downloaddiscovered) AppDatahellipFirefoxProfiles (blacklistxml- matching timestamps)FirefoxProfiles (file timestamps update)

                Usernamesemailaccounts

                N NA

                Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

                Videos N NA

                Apple Safari 517(Private browsing)

                Private browsingindicators

                Y Memdump ~SysVol Information (comappleSafariPrivateBrowsing timestamp)

                Browsing history Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (URL History) AppDataLocalAppleCompSafariWebpageIconsdbgt gt tables AppDataLocalAppleCompSafari (databasestimestamp updates) AppDatahellipAppleCompSafari amp Preferences(several plist timestamp updates) Pagefile (URLs and modified timestamps update)

                Usernamesemailaccounts

                N NA

                Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

                Videos N NA

                Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 9 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                Aside from the default processing options in FTKadditional refinements were selected to carve differenttypes of data and parse complex information Once FTKfinished processing the evidence files numerous hourswere spent sifting through the data We found that itwas also beneficial to use a program called Live View[20] to have a better understanding of the artifactsfound Live View is an open source program that canconvert a raw image to a virtual disk The disk must bebooted into safe mode for the virtual machine to workcorrectly without having to activate Windows By usingtwo screens simultaneously one with a live virtual

                environment and the other with the forensic image inFTK it allowed us to fully grasp and understand theconnections See Tables 8 and 9 for complete results

                66 Results analysisPrivate browsing modes and portable web browsers doin fact leave incriminating evidence but it depends onthe browser Some web browsers left enough informationto establish an affirmative link and some did not Out ofthe four major web browsers Internet Explorer providedthe most residual artifacts but not where commonartifacts are typically sought This was fairly consistent

                Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

                Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

                Google chromeportable - 240131252

                Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

                Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

                Usernamesemailaccounts

                Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

                Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

                Videos N NA

                Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

                Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

                Usernamesemailaccounts

                N NA

                Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

                Videos N NA

                Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

                Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

                Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

                Usernamesemailaccounts

                Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

                Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

                Videos N NA

                Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

                to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

                Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

                always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

                most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

                view)

                Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

                Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

                appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

                Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

                drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

                much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

                them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

                Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

                Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

                An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

                7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

                over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

                8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

                Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

                Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

                References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

                browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

                2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

                3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

                4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

                5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

                6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

                7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

                8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

                9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

                10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

                11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

                12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

                13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

                17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

                18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

                19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

                20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

                doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

                Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

                7 Convenient online submission

                7 Rigorous peer review

                7 Immediate publication on acceptance

                7 Open access articles freely available online

                7 High visibility within the fi eld

                7 Retaining the copyright to your article

                Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

                • Abstract
                • 1 Introduction
                • 2 Background definitions
                • 3 Related work
                  • 31 Private browsing
                  • 32 Portable web browsing
                  • 33 Flash drive
                    • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
                      • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
                      • 42 Google chrome
                      • 43 Mozilla Firefox
                      • 44 Apple safari
                        • 5 Portable software
                          • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                            • 6 Implementations and experiments
                              • 61 Tools and setup
                                • Hardware
                                • Software
                                  • 62 Preliminary analysis
                                  • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                                  • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                                  • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                                  • 66 Results analysis
                                  • 67 Additional forensic results
                                    • 7 Future work
                                    • 8 Conclusion
                                    • Competing interests
                                    • References

                  Table 8 Private web browsing artifacts

                  Artifacts Discovered Target locations

                  Microsoft internet explorer80 (InPrivate browsing)

                  Private browsingindicator

                  Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo - prior to URL history)$I30 (hellipContentIE5- lsquoinprivate [1]rsquo- prior to list of jpegs) Pagefile

                  Browsing history Y Memdump Free space File slack (Temporary Internet Folder RoaminghellipCustomDestinations) SysVol Info $LogFile $J AppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

                  Usernamesemailaccounts

                  Y Memdump Freespace Temporary Internet Folder UserAppDatahellipIERecoveryActive

                  Images Y Memdump (partial photos) Free space (full content) File slack (full content)

                  Videos N NA

                  Google chrome 230127195(Incognito)

                  Incognitoindicators

                  Y Memdump ChromehellipInstallerchrome7z amp chromedll (timestamp matches)$I30 (safebrowsing timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser Datachrome_shutdown_mstxt (always updates with timestamp) AppDataLocalGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultExtension Statelog (declarative_rulesincognitodeclaritiveWebRequest- timestamp matches session start) ~SysVol Information (new incognitowindow with timestamps) AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (new incognito window with timestamps) ChromeUserDataSafebrowsingcookiesdb (modified timestamp)

                  Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Info (matching timestamps) Pagefilesys (downloaded file)

                  Usernamesemailaccounts

                  N NA

                  Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

                  Videos N NA

                  Mozilla Firefox 1701(Private browsing)

                  Private browsingindicators

                  Y Memdump (browsing mode) SysVolume Information (Enter Private Browsingand Windowrsquos User listed below- file timestamp accurate)

                  Browsing history Y Memdump Free space- AppDatahellipTemp WinPrefetch (rtf temp file downloaddiscovered) AppDatahellipFirefoxProfiles (blacklistxml- matching timestamps)FirefoxProfiles (file timestamps update)

                  Usernamesemailaccounts

                  N NA

                  Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

                  Videos N NA

                  Apple Safari 517(Private browsing)

                  Private browsingindicators

                  Y Memdump ~SysVol Information (comappleSafariPrivateBrowsing timestamp)

                  Browsing history Y Memdump FreeSlack Space (URL History) AppDataLocalAppleCompSafariWebpageIconsdbgt gt tables AppDataLocalAppleCompSafari (databasestimestamp updates) AppDatahellipAppleCompSafari amp Preferences(several plist timestamp updates) Pagefile (URLs and modified timestamps update)

                  Usernamesemailaccounts

                  N NA

                  Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images)

                  Videos N NA

                  Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 9 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                  Aside from the default processing options in FTKadditional refinements were selected to carve differenttypes of data and parse complex information Once FTKfinished processing the evidence files numerous hourswere spent sifting through the data We found that itwas also beneficial to use a program called Live View[20] to have a better understanding of the artifactsfound Live View is an open source program that canconvert a raw image to a virtual disk The disk must bebooted into safe mode for the virtual machine to workcorrectly without having to activate Windows By usingtwo screens simultaneously one with a live virtual

                  environment and the other with the forensic image inFTK it allowed us to fully grasp and understand theconnections See Tables 8 and 9 for complete results

                  66 Results analysisPrivate browsing modes and portable web browsers doin fact leave incriminating evidence but it depends onthe browser Some web browsers left enough informationto establish an affirmative link and some did not Out ofthe four major web browsers Internet Explorer providedthe most residual artifacts but not where commonartifacts are typically sought This was fairly consistent

                  Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

                  Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

                  Google chromeportable - 240131252

                  Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

                  Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

                  Usernamesemailaccounts

                  Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

                  Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

                  Videos N NA

                  Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

                  Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

                  Usernamesemailaccounts

                  N NA

                  Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

                  Videos N NA

                  Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

                  Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

                  Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

                  Usernamesemailaccounts

                  Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

                  Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

                  Videos N NA

                  Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                  with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

                  to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

                  Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

                  always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

                  most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

                  view)

                  Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

                  Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                  for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

                  appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

                  Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

                  drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

                  much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

                  them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

                  Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

                  Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                  67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

                  An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

                  7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

                  over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

                  8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

                  Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                  Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

                  Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

                  References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

                  browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

                  2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

                  3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

                  4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

                  5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

                  6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

                  7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

                  8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

                  9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

                  10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

                  11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

                  12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

                  13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                  14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                  15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                  16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

                  17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

                  18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

                  19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

                  20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

                  doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

                  Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

                  7 Convenient online submission

                  7 Rigorous peer review

                  7 Immediate publication on acceptance

                  7 Open access articles freely available online

                  7 High visibility within the fi eld

                  7 Retaining the copyright to your article

                  Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

                  • Abstract
                  • 1 Introduction
                  • 2 Background definitions
                  • 3 Related work
                    • 31 Private browsing
                    • 32 Portable web browsing
                    • 33 Flash drive
                      • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
                        • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
                        • 42 Google chrome
                        • 43 Mozilla Firefox
                        • 44 Apple safari
                          • 5 Portable software
                            • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                              • 6 Implementations and experiments
                                • 61 Tools and setup
                                  • Hardware
                                  • Software
                                    • 62 Preliminary analysis
                                    • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                                    • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                                    • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                                    • 66 Results analysis
                                    • 67 Additional forensic results
                                      • 7 Future work
                                      • 8 Conclusion
                                      • Competing interests
                                      • References

                    Table 9 Portable web browsing artifacts

                    Artifacts Discovered Target Locations

                    Google chromeportable - 240131252

                    Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Prefetch Pagefile Memdump $LogfileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations ~SystemVolume Information AppDataLocalTemp AppDataLocLowMicCryptnetUrlCacheWinAppCompatProgRecentFileCache WinMicNETFrameworklog (fileslack)WinSys32LogFilesWUDF (fileslack)

                    Browsing history Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Memdump Orphan Directory PagefileUsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk)

                    Usernamesemailaccounts

                    Y [Orphan] directory and NTFS Unallocated FreeSlack Space

                    Images Y Carved (NTFS Unallocated Space and Orphan Directory)

                    Videos N NA

                    Opera portable - 1212 Browser indicators Y NTFS Allocated and Unallocated Space Pagefile Memdump $LogFile ~System VolumeInformation NTUSERDAT AppDataLocalMicWinUsrClassdat UsersAppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsRecentCustomDestinations (Carved lnk) WinPrefetch WinSys32LogFilesSQMSQMLogger

                    Browsing history Y Memdump AppDataRoamingMicWinRecCustomDestinations (Carved lnk files withLast Access Times)

                    Usernamesemailaccounts

                    N NA

                    Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

                    Videos N NA

                    Mozilla fireFoxportable - 1801

                    Browser indicators Y Memdump SysVol Information file timestamp (Firefox Portable appinfo)

                    Browsing history Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email only)

                    Usernamesemailaccounts

                    Y Memdump SysVol Information (Email Account History)

                    Images Y Carved from Memdump (Mostly partial images and difficult to view full content)

                    Videos N NA

                    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 10 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                    with all the browsers For example the Indexdat (history)and Registry gt TypedURLs were empty but we were stillable to recover virtually all cached images URL historyand usernames with their associated accounts Everythingwas recoverable except for playable videos Even thoughmost of the data was recovered from RAM free spaceand slack space areas there were sufficient findings withinallocated space as well Figure 4 shows an lsquo[InPrivate]rsquoindicator within RAM prior to an online search for hackingIn regard to indicators there were a few areas wherelsquoInPrivatersquo and lsquoStart InPrivate Browsingrsquo were notedprior to a URL history log Figure 5 shows one of theseindicators within allocated space It was also noted thatthe Microsoft lsquoPrivacIErsquo directory was found emptyThe three remaining browsers were a little more difficult

                    to recover residual artifacts from It appeared that theoverall best way to recover residual data was to obtain theevidence from RAM or working memory but that is not

                    Figure 4 [InPrivate] search for lsquohow + to + hack +helliprsquo within RAM (Hex

                    always possible for investigators For Google ChromeIncognito artifacts there were many browsing indicatorsand changes in timestamps to show Chrome usage Howeverit was difficult to establish an affirmative link between theuser and session because none of the usernames and otherhistorical information was accessible the same resulted forMozilla Firefox In both of these cases any documents thatwere temporarily opened from the Internet were recoverableThis information is important because browsing indicatorsalong with timestamps may be able to explain whysomething like as URL history is not there For example ifa live search using regular expressions was used to locateone of these hidden artifacts in an unfamiliar location aninvestigator can now understand why they were not foundin other common areasApple Safari seemed to fall in the middle by keeping

                    most things private while still leaving traces on themachine The easiest way to view the browsing history

                    view)

                    Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

                    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                    for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

                    appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

                    Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

                    drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

                    much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

                    them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

                    Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

                    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                    67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

                    An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

                    7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

                    over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

                    8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

                    Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                    Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

                    Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

                    References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

                    browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

                    2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

                    3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

                    4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

                    5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

                    6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

                    7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

                    8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

                    9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

                    10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

                    11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

                    12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

                    13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                    14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                    15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                    16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

                    17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

                    18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

                    19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

                    20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

                    doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

                    Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

                    7 Convenient online submission

                    7 Rigorous peer review

                    7 Immediate publication on acceptance

                    7 Open access articles freely available online

                    7 High visibility within the fi eld

                    7 Retaining the copyright to your article

                    Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

                    • Abstract
                    • 1 Introduction
                    • 2 Background definitions
                    • 3 Related work
                      • 31 Private browsing
                      • 32 Portable web browsing
                      • 33 Flash drive
                        • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
                          • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
                          • 42 Google chrome
                          • 43 Mozilla Firefox
                          • 44 Apple safari
                            • 5 Portable software
                              • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                                • 6 Implementations and experiments
                                  • 61 Tools and setup
                                    • Hardware
                                    • Software
                                      • 62 Preliminary analysis
                                      • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                                      • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                                      • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                                      • 66 Results analysis
                                      • 67 Additional forensic results
                                        • 7 Future work
                                        • 8 Conclusion
                                        • Competing interests
                                        • References

                      Figure 5 InPrivate indicator in FTK

                      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 11 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                      for Safari private browsing sessions was to locate thelsquoWebpageIconsrsquo database under Safari artifacts This databaseprovided a good log of every visited URL along with otherpertinent information Figure 6 shows some of the databaseartifacts using FTK It is important to realize that thiscan be used to explain to courts as to why URL historywould be located here and nowhere else under Safari dataIt is not always about what is present but what is absentis also of valueWith regard to residual portable browsing artifacts it

                      appeared that everything was just as easily obtainedfrom the memory dumps as it was with the installedbrowsers However not everything was located on thetarget hard drives Out of the three portable webbrowsers tested Google Chrome Portable left the mostresidual artifacts on the host machine The recoveryseemed as if Chrome was installed on the machine itselfAlmost all artifacts to include images browsing historybrowsing method and usernames with associated accountswere located on the disk Also note these recoveredartifacts were obtained without the flash drive Theimportance for an investigator to distinguish that theseartifacts came from Google Chrome Portable is for tworeasons (a) to be able to explain why Chrome artifactswere not located under common areas and (b) to alert theinvestigator that further evidence may be found on a flash

                      Figure 6 Safari WebpageIcons database

                      drive that the investigator did not originally considerFigure 7 provides a comparison of all the browserstested and the strength of evidence which can be foundOpera Portable on the other hand did not leave as

                      much information as Chrome There were many portablebrowsing indicators but most history artifacts werelimited none of the usernames or accounts could berecovered Firefox Portable resulted in similar findingshowever some user activity was found to be recoverableAll of the usernames associated with their respected emailaccounts were recovered along with Firefox browsingindicatorsIn reference to carved images from RAM most of

                      them were distorted but a few of the images could beseen as a whole One solution was to try and match adistorted image from RAM with a whole image on thehard drive using FTKs fuzzy hash option This would bea great way to link carved contraband to working memoryartifacts and therefore strengthening evidence against theuser The program attempts to match files by determininga fundamental level of similarity between hashes Thismethod did not always work as hoped Some of thethumbnails stored in RAM were successfully matchedwith ones on the disk but none specific to user activityPerhaps on a machine with a much higher capacity ofRAM this would be more useful

                      Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

                      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                      67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

                      An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

                      7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

                      over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

                      8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

                      Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                      Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

                      Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

                      References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

                      browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

                      2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

                      3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

                      4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

                      5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

                      6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

                      7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

                      8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

                      9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

                      10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

                      11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

                      12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

                      13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                      14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                      15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                      16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

                      17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

                      18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

                      19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

                      20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

                      doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

                      Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

                      7 Convenient online submission

                      7 Rigorous peer review

                      7 Immediate publication on acceptance

                      7 Open access articles freely available online

                      7 High visibility within the fi eld

                      7 Retaining the copyright to your article

                      Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

                      • Abstract
                      • 1 Introduction
                      • 2 Background definitions
                      • 3 Related work
                        • 31 Private browsing
                        • 32 Portable web browsing
                        • 33 Flash drive
                          • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
                            • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
                            • 42 Google chrome
                            • 43 Mozilla Firefox
                            • 44 Apple safari
                              • 5 Portable software
                                • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                                  • 6 Implementations and experiments
                                    • 61 Tools and setup
                                      • Hardware
                                      • Software
                                        • 62 Preliminary analysis
                                        • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                                        • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                                        • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                                        • 66 Results analysis
                                        • 67 Additional forensic results
                                          • 7 Future work
                                          • 8 Conclusion
                                          • Competing interests
                                          • References

                        Figure 7 Web browsers - strength of residual evidence

                        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 12 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                        67 Additional forensic resultsAside from discovering hidden web browsing artifactsthere is another finding worth mentioning due to itssignificant linking of users and machines Every time theexternal hard drive (WD Passport) was connected toone of the machines via USB not only did it leaveunique identifiers but also a log of every folder locatedon the Passport This information was transferreddirectly to the Windows machine while remaining onthe hard drive and RAM For this reason a flash drivewas later used to dump the memory on the Desktop topreserve data integrity without further contaminationThe Passport files were discovered within several differentlocations on the hard drive One was within a log file calledthe Circular Kernal Context Logger (BootCKCLetl)and the other was within Tracefx files Most prob-ably the reason for the Tracefx files was due to theactivity of a USB device configured for ReadyBoost(virtual memory)This finding raises a number of questions and concerns

                        An investigator can easily document certain footprintssuch as plugging in devices and checking runningprocesses It is the unknown footprints which cancause a problem This could violate certain policy andprocedures that were once considered forensicallysound On the other hand it could provide an investigatorwith enough information to understand that the file pathsmay be pointing to an external device So not only willinformation from the Registry provide unique identifiersbut this could also be used to know what type ofcontraband may be on the lsquomissing evidencersquo This informa-tion would be extremely helpful when trying to establish anaffirmative link between user and target machine

                        7 Future workFuture work may include further RAM experimentsand more efficient methods to extract information

                        over an extended period of time instead of one con-trolled browsing session In addition forensic tools orcarving options may be developed to provide investi-gators with whether or not these browsing artifactsexist (01 = FalsePositive) and parse these artifactsaccordingly

                        8 ConclusionThe majority of recovered artifacts were discovered inRAM slackfree space and FTK [Orphan] directoriesThat being said information was still obtained withinallocated space Another commonality between thebrowsers was information contained within the SystemVolume Information directory The bottom line is thatour research clearly establishes authoritative answers towhich were never there before In addition some of ourauthoritative results contradict prior research statementsFor example one study [2] made the statement that itwould be impossible to trace residual information otherthan USB identifiers if a portable storage device was notaccessible to the investigator Our research clearly showsthat further data can still be recovered on host machineswithout the portable storage device being present Overallour research is a valuable resource pertaining to privateand portable web browsing artifacts Not every web browserwill leave incriminating evidence but some will dependingon the situation These residual artifacts may or may not beimportant to a case but on the other hand it may bethe only way to explain certain results Computerforensic investigators must treat digital environmentslike a real crime scene It is not only important todocument what is found but to also note what is notthere and ask why Our research now provides an alter-native way to perceive these types of findings andexplain the results We conclude that just becausesomething is not there does not mean it neverhappened

                        Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                        Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

                        Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

                        References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

                        browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

                        2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

                        3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

                        4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

                        5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

                        6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

                        7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

                        8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

                        9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

                        10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

                        11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

                        12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

                        13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                        14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                        15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                        16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

                        17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

                        18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

                        19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

                        20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

                        doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

                        Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

                        7 Convenient online submission

                        7 Rigorous peer review

                        7 Immediate publication on acceptance

                        7 Open access articles freely available online

                        7 High visibility within the fi eld

                        7 Retaining the copyright to your article

                        Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

                        • Abstract
                        • 1 Introduction
                        • 2 Background definitions
                        • 3 Related work
                          • 31 Private browsing
                          • 32 Portable web browsing
                          • 33 Flash drive
                            • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
                              • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
                              • 42 Google chrome
                              • 43 Mozilla Firefox
                              • 44 Apple safari
                                • 5 Portable software
                                  • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                                    • 6 Implementations and experiments
                                      • 61 Tools and setup
                                        • Hardware
                                        • Software
                                          • 62 Preliminary analysis
                                          • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                                          • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                                          • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                                          • 66 Results analysis
                                          • 67 Additional forensic results
                                            • 7 Future work
                                            • 8 Conclusion
                                            • Competing interests
                                            • References

                          Ohana and Shashidhar EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2013 20136 Page 13 of 13httpjiseurasipjournalscomcontent201316

                          Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests

                          Received 29 July 2013 Accepted 4 November 2013Published 21 November 2013

                          References1 G Aggarwal E Bursztein C Jackson D Boneh An analysis of private

                          browsing modes in modern browsers in Proc Of 19th Usenix SecuritySymposium ( Washington DC 2010) pp 11ndash13

                          2 JH Choi KG Lee J Park C Lee S Lee Analysis framework to detect artifacts ofportable web browser (Center for Information Security Technologies Seoul 2012)

                          3 SanDisk U3 Launchpad End of Life Notice 2010 Available httpkbsandiskcomappanswersdetaila_id5358~u3-launchpad-end-of-life-noticeAccessed 28 July 2012

                          4 C Soghoian Why private browsing modes do not deliver real privacy(Center for Applied Cyber security Research Bloomington 2011)

                          5 Wikipedia U3 2013 Available httpenwikipediaorgwikiU3Accessed 22 July 2012

                          6 R Tank PAH Williams The impact of U3 devices on forensic analysis(Australian Digital Forensics Conference Perth 2008)

                          7 T Bosschert Battling anti-forensics beating the U3 stick J Digit ForensicPract 1(4) 265ndash273 (2007)

                          8 Microsoft InPrivate Browsing 2012 Available httpwindowsmicrosoftcomen-USinternet-explorerproductsie-9featuresin-privateAccessed 03 September 2012

                          9 Google Incognito mode 2012 Available httpswwwgooglecomintlenchromebrowserfeatureshtmlprivacy Accessed 03 September 2012

                          10 Mozilla Private Browsing 2012 Available httpsupportmozillaorgen-USkbprivate-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-infoAccessed 03 September 2012

                          11 Apple Safari 51 Browse Privately 2012 Available httpsupportapplecomkbPH5000 Accessed 03 September 2012

                          12 PortableApps 2013 Available httpportableappscomAccessed 27 July 2012

                          13 PortableApps Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 2013 Availablehttp portableappscomappsinternetfirefox_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                          14 PortableApps Google Chrome Portable 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetgoogle_chrome_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                          15 PortableApps Opera Portable Edition 2013 Available httpportableappscomappsinternetopera_portable Accessed 27 July 2012

                          16 Disk Wipe Disk Wipe 2009 Available httpwwwdiskwipeorgAccessed 12 December 2012

                          17 DaemonFS Sourceforge DaemonFS 2010 Available httpsourceforgenetprojectsdaemonfs Accessed 27 July 2012

                          18 Nir Sofer NirSoft Freeware Utilities 2013 Available httpnirsoftnetAccessed 12 December 2012

                          19 AccessData FTK 2013 Available httpwwwaccessdatacomproductsdigital-forensicsftk Accessed 18 December 2012

                          20 Carnegie Mellon Live View 2006 Available httpliveviewsourceforgenetAccessed 18 December 2012

                          doi1011861687-417X-2013-6Cite this article as Ohana and Shashidhar Do private and portable webbrowsers leave incriminating evidence a forensic analysis of residualartifacts from private and portable web browsing sessions EURASIPJournal on Information Security 2013 20136

                          Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from

                          7 Convenient online submission

                          7 Rigorous peer review

                          7 Immediate publication on acceptance

                          7 Open access articles freely available online

                          7 High visibility within the fi eld

                          7 Retaining the copyright to your article

                          Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropencom

                          • Abstract
                          • 1 Introduction
                          • 2 Background definitions
                          • 3 Related work
                            • 31 Private browsing
                            • 32 Portable web browsing
                            • 33 Flash drive
                              • 4 Major browsers and private browsing
                                • 41 Microsoft Internet Explorer
                                • 42 Google chrome
                                • 43 Mozilla Firefox
                                • 44 Apple safari
                                  • 5 Portable software
                                    • 51 Portable application and web browsers
                                      • 6 Implementations and experiments
                                        • 61 Tools and setup
                                          • Hardware
                                          • Software
                                            • 62 Preliminary analysis
                                            • 63 Private ate browsing experiments
                                            • 64 Portable browsing experiment
                                            • 65 Forensic acquisition and analysis
                                            • 66 Results analysis
                                            • 67 Additional forensic results
                                              • 7 Future work
                                              • 8 Conclusion
                                              • Competing interests
                                              • References

                            top related