Reference Number: DPEA-31080 Page 40 of 42 iv. EVIDENCE CLASS 4 - Steganography is found in the image. Using the Steg Spy tool, the Steg content found in the 14 Wildlife image attachments in the email conversation detected steganographic signals with the information on the identified marker, which will be key evidence in the Car theft racket case. *********************************************************************************** 6. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION REACHED Forensic Investigator Opinion regarding case findings In conclusion, digital forensics methodologies were used in the DPEA-31080 car theft case, and the Generic Computer Forensic Investigation Model framework was proven but quite difficult to conclude regarding the state of steganalysis tools. Because it can be said that steganalysis is not as straightforward or convenient as steganography. This translates to many advantages for those who hide secrets using steganography as the suspects in this case. And a huge disadvantage for forensic analysts, who has the challenge of detecting and retrieving the hidden messages without destroying them. As steganographic tools become more widely available for anybody who wants to hide or communicate secrets, and as evidence of their misuse in various domains arises, such as in the DPEA-31080 car theft case, we as a forensic analysts encounter new challenges in our investigations. Criminals would take advantage of any chance to ensure the success of their schemes. This might include the widespread sharing of terror plans through the Internet or even more sophisticated methods of sending and storing illegal information on a portable storage device. But still, as a forensic investigator, we analyze the Steganographic communications in the form of secret messages that were revealed using the StegBrute tool, which included a hidden message regarding the Car Theft crime behind stenographical altered Wildlife images. Date: February 3, 2022 Signature: JOACHIM Signature of investigator By: JOACHIM AGOSTAIN
Reference Number: DPEA-31080 Page 41 of 42 DPEA-31080.001 File Types Summary & Activity of Data Sources Range for the past 30 days leading up to the acquisition of the suspect's computer to perform the investigation ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Dr. Syifak Izhar Hisham, Head of Cyber Division of the University of Pahang's Cyber Security Department, for her insightful comments and immediate feedback during the investigation. 7. REFERENCES Firm, I. I. (2021, January 2). Information Security Officers Group Association (ISOG). Retrieved from Private Investigation & Detective: https://isog.org/ Griffin, L. (2019, November 12). Study.com. Retrieved from Attacks in Digital Crime: https://study.com/academy/lesson/attacks-in-digital-crime-definition-typesvulnerability.html Mr. Matt Gorham, A. D. (2019). 2019 Internet Crime Report. Internet Crime Complaint Center, FBI, Cyber Division. California, United States of America: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2019_IC3Report.pdf Mr. Paul Abbate, D. D. (2020). Internet Crime Report 2020. FBI, Cyber Division Investigation. US Republic: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2020_IC3Report.pdf
Reference Number: DPEA-31080 Page 42 of 42 Nhien-An Le-Khac, D. J. (August, 2020). Smart Vehicle Forensics: Challenges and Case Study. California, Western U.S. State, United States of America: Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167739X17322422 Offices, C. I. (2021, January 1). Digital Forensic (CyberCSI). Retrieved from CyberSecurity Malaysia: https://www.cybersecurity.my/en/index.html rashi_garg@rashi. (2022, Jun 02). GeeksforGeeks. Retrieved from Chain of Custody – Digital Forensics: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/chain-of-custody-digitalforensics/