Difference between pages "Tools:Memory Imaging" and "Talk:Carver 2.0 Planning Page"

From Forensics Wiki
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Microsoft Windows)
 
(LGPL discussion)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
The [[physical memory]] of computers can be imaged and analyzed using a variety of tools. Because the procedure for accessing physical memory varies between [[operating systems]], these tools are listed by operating system.
+
License: have we even discussed a license yet?  Who chose it?  I'm not terribly opposed to a 3-clause BSD, but...? - [[User:RB|RB]] 00:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  
== Microsoft Windows ==
+
[[User:Joachim Metz|Joachim]] I prefer the LPGL it's restricts the usage of the code somewhat more. When its integrated in other (closed source) tooling which is published, they must publish that the tool uses this code.
  
; [[dd]]
+
:: LGPL?
: A version of [[dd]] by George Garner allows an Administrator user to image memory using the ''\device\physicalmemory'' object. Userland access to this object is denied starting in Windows 2003 Service Pack 1 and Windows Vista. This program cannot be used on Windows 2003 SP1 and above.
+
:: [[User:.FUF|.FUF]] 19:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 
+
:: [[User:Joachim Metz|Joachim]] GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical)
; [[hibernation]] files
+
:::: ''Joachim I prefer the LPGL'' :) [[User:.FUF|.FUF]] 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
: Windows 98, 2000, XP, 2003, and Vista support a feature called hibernation that saves the machine's state to the disk when the computer is powered off. When the machine is turned on again, the state is restored and the user can return to the exact point where they left off. The machine's state, including a compressed image of physical memory, is written to the disk on the System drive, usually C:, as hiberfil.sys. This file can be parsed and decompressed to obtain the memory image.
+
:::::: [[User:Joachim Metz|Joachim]] To quote Homer Simpson "Doh!"
 
+
:: Agreed. I sit on the fence between BSD and GPL: the business half of me agrees that open licensing should place as few restrictions or qualifications as possible, whereas the idealist/OSS side wants to ensure the project's freedom. The LGPL is a more reasonable balance, encouraging widespread use but ensuring modifications' freedom.
== Exploits ==
+
 
+
At [[CanSec West 05]], [[Michael Becher]], [[Maximillian Dornseif]], and [[Christian N. Klein]] discussed an [[exploit]] which uses [[DMA]] to read arbitrary memory locations of a [[firewire]]-enabled system. The [http://md.hudora.de/presentations/firewire/2005-firewire-cansecwest.pdf paper] lists more details. The exploit is run on an [http://ipodlinux.org/Main_Page iPod running Linux]. This can be used to grab screen contents.
+
 
+
In theory, this could be used with the ... to send through an exploit code that would cause the system to dump the contents of its hard drive back to the [[iPod]].
+

Revision as of 11:57, 1 November 2008

License: have we even discussed a license yet? Who chose it? I'm not terribly opposed to a 3-clause BSD, but...? - RB 00:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Joachim I prefer the LPGL it's restricts the usage of the code somewhat more. When its integrated in other (closed source) tooling which is published, they must publish that the tool uses this code.

LGPL?
.FUF 19:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Joachim GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical)
Joachim I prefer the LPGL :) .FUF 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Joachim To quote Homer Simpson "Doh!"
Agreed. I sit on the fence between BSD and GPL: the business half of me agrees that open licensing should place as few restrictions or qualifications as possible, whereas the idealist/OSS side wants to ensure the project's freedom. The LGPL is a more reasonable balance, encouraging widespread use but ensuring modifications' freedom.