Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

SECURE DATA WIPING In October 2025, I expanded my forensic analysis to a second-hand mobile phone acquired from Accra Circle. During the examination, I recovered extensive WhatsApp artifacts dating as far back as 2016 and 2017. These included voice notes, images, videos, call logs, and full file system data....

14,270 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Why did Ian Whiffin agree to give expert testimony on Jen McCabe’s cellphone extraction, when the state refused to let him look at or even give him the full, original extraction OR its verification hash? A thread🧵 Full cellphone extractions, sometimes called forensic images, generate what’s called a “hash value”, which serves as a unique digital fingerprint necessary for ensuring the integrity of data. Any discrepancy between the hash values indicates tampering with or corruption of evidence, alerting forensic examiners to potential issues with the evidence. Hash verification is a fundamental principle and a rather ubiquitous practice in the world of digital forensics, where data validation and verification are key. It is the gold standard across the industry, and has also become so in the courtroom, whereby admissibility of digital evidence is determined by its relevance, authenticity and reliability. In court, the hash value can be used to demonstrate that the evidence has not been altered since its collection, and is a universal way for experts to authenticate and validate the reliability of data for the trial Court. But, an extraction that’s missing a hash value altogether is a huge red flag. 🚩 Who removed the hash value? And why? It’s necessary to the chain of custody, and as Gaurino and Tully would be well aware, it’s also an element of the data that an expert would require in order to verify and validate it. There’s no “good” reason for why someone would remove a hash value, and the extraction can’t be characterized as a forensic image as its origin is unknown. This was a deliberate step taken to hide something, which one could argue shows consciousness of guilt. If the data are true and accurate, why would you bring their integrity into question by removing the hash? However, if the data were altered or tampered with, and let’s say, hypothetically speaking, you wanted a digital forensic expert to provide testimony supportive of your “Google search” theory. . . In that hypothetical, you’d have to remove the hash value. Otherwise, the expert would immediately detect that the data were altered, as they would not be able to verify the hash against the original. #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #FreeKarenRead #CantonCoverup #PoliceCorruption #KarenRead #Cellebrite #DFIR

Olivia

270,376 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

This is a shocking reminder of why you can never let your guard down, even when dealing with retail employees at a major service provider. ​In a disturbing breach of trust, a Metro by T-Mobile store associate took advantage of a customer who was simply trying to upgrade a phone. While pretending to assist with the device and transfer data, the worker took the customer’s unlocked phone and secretly opened their Cash App. ​The employee successfully transferred $400 directly to her own account. Greedy for more, she immediately tried to drain another $500. Fortunately, the bank flagged the second back-to-back transaction as highly suspicious and denied the transfer, stopping the theft from escalating. Police were called to the scene, and bodycam footage captured the investigation that ultimately exposed the employee’s pattern of predatory behavior. ​This incident serves as a massive wake-up call for everyone. Your phone is your digital wallet, and handing it over to anyone—even a retail worker in uniform—comes with severe risks. ​To protect your money and your identity, always follow these critical security steps: ​1. Enable a security lock (Face ID, fingerprint, or a strict PIN) explicitly for all financial apps like Cash App, Venmo, and mobile banking. Even if your phone is unlocked, the apps themselves should require a separate login. 2. Never give your phone’s master passcode to a retail employee. They do not need it to activate a device. 3. Log out of your financial and password-manager apps before handing your phone over for tech support. 4. Watch the employee like a hawk. If they need to take your phone to a back room, tell them you prefer the work be done right in front of you. ​Don't let a routine errand turn into a financial nightmare. Stay vigilant and lock your data.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

449,256 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

[Video] 20251217 | YouTube Lawyer’s Analysis Video - Translation “Kim Sae-ron Recording Deemed ‘Inconclusive’ by the National Forensic Service — Does It Have Legal Evidentiary Value?” Hello, this is Attorney Jo Gi-hyun, representative of Daehan Jungang. Regarding the audio recording released by Kim Se-ui of Garosero, which has been presented as evidence to support the claim that Kim Soo-hyun engaged in inappropriate relations with Kim Sae-ron, the National Forensic Service (NFS) has concluded that it is “impossible to determine” whether the recording was manipulated. If this recording is classified as “inconclusive,” how should the legal disputes surrounding Kim Soo-hyun be addressed, and how are they likely to be handled? This recording attempts to prove that there was an inappropriate relationship between Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron. However, if it is not even possible to determine whether the recording is authentic or fabricated, then the recording itself inherently suffers from a failure to function properly as evidence. From a legal structural standpoint, this means that it is not Kim Soo-hyun who must prove his innocence, but rather the party attacking him must prove the existence of immoral conduct. Under these circumstances, the National Forensic Service’s conclusion of “inconclusive” actually places Kim Soo-hyun in a more favorable legal position. Let us examine this more specifically. Kim Soo-hyun has filed a criminal complaint against Kim Se-ui on the grounds of defamation through the dissemination of false information. In response, Kim Se-ui’s side asserts that Kim Soo-hyun and Kim Sae-ron had an inappropriate relationship and has submitted this audio recording as evidence. In other words, Kim Se-ui’s position is as follows: Even if the formal elements of defamation are satisfied, the content he disclosed is not false, and its disclosure was necessary in the public interest because it reflects the truth. From Kim Soo-hyun’s perspective, since the National Forensic Service did not definitively conclude that the recording was manipulated, there may, on a formal level, remain some degree of uncertainty as to whether Kim Se-ui was spreading false information or stating the truth. However, the fundamental issue is this: The party who initiated the attack is Kim Se-ui, and the core of his allegation is that Kim Soo-hyun engaged in immoral and improper conduct. The central piece of evidence supporting this allegation is precisely this audio recording. Yet now, even the authenticity of this crucial evidence cannot be determined. This means that the content asserted by Kim Se-ui carries a high likelihood of being interpreted as false information. From a civil law perspective, this issue becomes even more critical. Currently, multiple companies and advertisers have filed large-scale damage claims against Kim Soo-hyun, citing the alleged inappropriate relationship between Kim Soo-hyun and Kim Sae-ron as the basis for their lawsuits. But the problem is this: The core evidence used to determine whether such an inappropriate relationship existed—the audio recording—cannot be authenticated even by the National Forensic Service. Under these circumstances, how much probative value can this recording truly have in civil litigation? Especially in today’s reality, where AI-based synthesis and manipulation technologies are rapidly advancing, it is absolutely unacceptable in legal disputes to criminalize, demonize, and effectively put someone on trial based solely on materials that are known to carry the possibility of fabrication or manipulation. #WeStandWithKimSooHyun #김수현 #KimSooHyun #金秀賢 #キムスヒョン #คิมซูฮยอน

Echoes of Kim Soo Hyun_CN

18,933 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

This is the Huawei Mate 90 Pro Max, paired with an external camera. It is important to emphasize that this is a true “external camera,” not a traditional external lens or telephoto attachment. The external camera itself features an independent 1-inch sensor, with up to 10x optical zoom and 100x digital zoom. In other words, from the sensor to the lens, it is a complete and independent imaging system in its own right. It is also very simple to use. Just attach it to the camera area of the Mate 90 Pro Max, and you can control the external camera directly through the phone’s screen, operating system, and camera software. In this setup, the phone’s own camera does not participate in image capture. The camera area mainly serves to secure and connect the external camera. The actual photography is handled by the external camera’s own 1-inch sensor and 24mm-to-240mm lens. This is also the biggest difference between it and traditional smartphone telephoto attachments. Traditional telephoto attachments still rely on the phone’s original camera to capture images, whereas this solution adds a complete, independent camera system to the phone. In a sense, you can think of the Mate 90 Pro Max as the external camera’s display, operating system, and computing platform. In theory, this external camera could also be used with other phones, as long as it is securely mounted and properly adapted through the appropriate connection method.

Ice Universe

61,121 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

The footage shown is regarding a historical event known as the Brookside Marketplace tragedy. It remains one of the most prominent cold cases in the region of Tinley Park, Illinois. ​The event took place during a typical morning at a retail clothing location. An unidentified male entered the establishment under the guise of a delivery person or surveyor. Once inside, he moved the individuals present—five customers and the store manager—into a rear storage area. ​During the encounter, a total of six women were harmed. Five of the individuals did not survive the event, while one woman survived the injuries she sustained. The survivor later became a key witness for the ensuing investigation, providing vital details regarding the assailant's appearance and the nature of the encounter. ​The Investigation and Search for the Assailant ​Law enforcement agencies launched an extensive investigation, collecting DNA evidence and ballistic data from the scene. Despite these efforts, the case faced significant hurdles: ​Suspect Description: The survivor helped create a composite sketch of a man with a distinct hairstyle featuring braided rows and a single green bead. ​The 911 Audio: A brief emergency call was placed during the event, which captured the assailant’s voice. Forensic experts have analyzed this audio for years to identify speech patterns or background noise. ​The Documentary Influence: The footage you viewed is linked to a documentary titled 15, produced by filmmaker Charlie Minn. The project was designed to re-examine the evidence and encourage anyone with suppressed information to come forward, utilizing modern digital reach to find leads that were unavailable during the initial inquiry. ​Current Status ​The case is categorized as an active, ongoing investigation. Although a significant financial reward has been maintained for information leading to an arrest, the identity of the person responsible remains unknown. Local authorities continue to review the file periodically as forensic technology advances, specifically in the areas of genetic genealogy and audio enhancement.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

15,878 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

FACT CHECK: Here at the first trial, the Commonwealth’s own expert witness, Ian Whiffin, confirms the necessity & importance of hash values for the sake of “hash verification”, a necessary step in authenticating the data & being able to verify that it hasn’t been altered or manipulated. In fact, Whiffin actually gives this testimony in response to a question about when the data have been altered or tampered with, if there’s a way for the forensic examiner (him) to detect it, and/or verify its authenticity and integrity. Remarkably, despite the DFIR industry standard methodology of hash verifying a digital forensic extraction, like that of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, prior to conducting any analysis on it with any forensic tools, Ian Whiffin testified that notably, for his work on this case, not only did he abandon this standard methodology, but he also admitted that the forensic extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, which he received from the Commonwealth, was stripped of its hash value. Perhaps more remarkably, this stunning fact apparently didn’t raise any red flags for Ian Whiffin when conducting his analysis in this case, where he’s providing testimony in a murder trial. One must ask themselves why that is? However, defense expert Richard Green, in his affidavit, states that: “Typically, forensic examiners are provided with the raw image file and the associated: hash value documentation together. After validating the hash value, I would then accept that the data has not been manipulated. Here, however, the hash documentation was not provided with the raw image of the cell phone. Instead, it was withheld from the defense. As a forensic examiner having received hundreds of imaged phones over the course of my decades-long career, this was unprecedented.” Contrary to Mr. Whiffin’s approach, upon initially receiving a purported extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone without a hash value to authenticate and verify the integrity of the data, Mr. Green promptly requested the hash value and corresponding GrayKey supplemental files from the Commonwealth in order to conduct his analysis. After making this demand, and when the Commonwealth had to produce the hash verification data for Jen McCabe’s iPhone, remarkably, the Commonwealth also produced—for the first time, and over a year later on February 8, 2023—the Full File System Extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone (see “Notice of Discovery VIII,” attached). Unlike the initial purported “extraction” produced by Trooper Nicholas Guarino, this one contained Jen McCabe’s incriminating 2:27am Google search and all of the manual deletions of her communications, among other incriminating evidence, surrounding the murder of Officer John O’Keefe (see defense’s Rule 17 motion from April 12, 2023, attached). So, this begs the question: If Ian Whiffin knows the importance of hash verification in validating the authenticity of the data he’s working with in the first place, then why didn’t he take the same actions as defense expert Richard Green did to responsibly and reliably provide analysis in this case? If Whiffin ought to be deemed an expert, qualified to provide analysis and testimony at trial, then why did he abandon his industry’s standard methodology of hash verification in this case? Even Cellebrite knows this is a no-no! What say you? #KarenReadTrial #Cellebrite #DFIR

Olivia

20,211 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce