FRASH: a framework to test algorithms of similarity hashing

  • Automated input identification is a very challenging, but also important task. Within computer forensics this reduces the amount of data an investigator has to look at by hand. Besides identifying exact duplicates, which is mostly solved using cryptographic hash functions, it is necessary to cope with similar inputs (e.g., different versions of a file), embedded objects (e.g., a JPG within a Word document), and fragments (e.g., network packets), too. Over the recent years a couple of different similarity hashing algorithms were published. However, due to the absence of a definition and a test framework, it is hardly possible to evaluate and compare these approaches to establish them in the community. The paper at hand aims at providing an assessment methodology and a sample implementation called FRASH: a framework to test algorithms of similarity hashing. First, we describe common use cases of a similarity hashing algorithm to motivate our two test classes efficiency and sensitivity &Automated input identification is a very challenging, but also important task. Within computer forensics this reduces the amount of data an investigator has to look at by hand. Besides identifying exact duplicates, which is mostly solved using cryptographic hash functions, it is necessary to cope with similar inputs (e.g., different versions of a file), embedded objects (e.g., a JPG within a Word document), and fragments (e.g., network packets), too. Over the recent years a couple of different similarity hashing algorithms were published. However, due to the absence of a definition and a test framework, it is hardly possible to evaluate and compare these approaches to establish them in the community. The paper at hand aims at providing an assessment methodology and a sample implementation called FRASH: a framework to test algorithms of similarity hashing. First, we describe common use cases of a similarity hashing algorithm to motivate our two test classes efficiency and sensitivity & robustness. Next, our open and freely available framework is briefly described. Finally, we apply FRASH to the well-known similarity hashing approaches ssdeep and sdhash to show their strengths and weaknesses.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Statistics

Number of document requests

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Frank BreitingerORCiDGND, Georgios Stivaktakis, Harald Baier
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-1176218
Frontdoor URLhttps://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/117621
ISSN:1742-2876OPAC
Parent Title (English):Digital Investigation
Publisher:Elsevier BV
Type:Article
Language:English
Year of first Publication:2013
Publishing Institution:Universität Augsburg
Release Date:2024/12/16
Volume:10
Issue:Supplement
First Page:S50
Last Page:S58
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2013.06.006
Institutes:Fakultät für Angewandte Informatik
Fakultät für Angewandte Informatik / Institut für Informatik
Fakultät für Angewandte Informatik / Institut für Informatik / Lehrstuhl für Cybersicherheit
Dewey Decimal Classification:0 Informatik, Informationswissenschaft, allgemeine Werke / 00 Informatik, Wissen, Systeme / 004 Datenverarbeitung; Informatik
Licence (German):CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0: Creative Commons: Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitung (mit Print on Demand)