Difference between revisions of "Windows Memory Analysis"

From ForensicsWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(added missing author and product name)
(Added sample memory images)
Line 1: Line 1:
...
+
Analysis of [[physical memory]] from [[Windows]] systems can yield significant information about the target operating system. This field is still very new, but holds great promise.
 +
 
 +
== Sample Memory Images ==
 +
 
 +
Getting started with memory analysis can be difficult without some known images to practice with.
 +
 
 +
* The 2005 [[Digital Forensic Research Workshop]] [http://www.dfrws.org/2005/challenge/ Memory Analysis Challenge] published two Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 memory images with some [[malware]] installed.
 +
 
 +
* The [http://dftt.sourceforge.net/ Digital Forensics Tool Testing] project has published a few [http://dftt.sourceforge.net/test13/index.html Windows memory images].
  
 
== History ==  
 
== History ==  

Revision as of 12:34, 26 February 2007

Analysis of physical memory from Windows systems can yield significant information about the target operating system. This field is still very new, but holds great promise.

Sample Memory Images

Getting started with memory analysis can be difficult without some known images to practice with.

History

During the 1990s, it became a best practice to capture a memory image during incident response. At the time, the only way to analyze such memory images was using strings. Although this method could reveal interesting details about the memory image, there was no way to associate what data came from what program, let alone what user.

In the summer 2005 the Digital Forensic Research Workshop published a Memory Analysis Challenge. They distributed two memory images and asked researchers to answer a number of questions about a security incident. The challenge produced two seminal works. The first, by Chris Betz, introduced a tool called memparser. The second, by George Garner and Robert-Jan Mora produced kntlist.