|
The Trojan horse defense started receiving attention through several different computer crime cases. This defense attributes the commission of a cybercrime on a malware, whether a Trojan horse, virus, worm or other program.〔Brenner, S., Carrier, B., Henninger, J., ‘The Trojan Horse Defense in Cybercrime Cases’ (2004) 21 Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 1, p.11.〕 The phrase is used because most of the successful Trojan horse defenses have been based on the operation of alleged Trojan horses.〔Brenner, S., Carrier, B., Henninger, J., ‘The Trojan Horse Defense in Cybercrime Cases’ (2004) 21 Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 1, p.11.〕 Although this defense is still in its infancy stage, various cases have proven the effectiveness of the Trojan horse defense. Due to the increasing use of Trojan programs by hackers, this defense is likely to become more widespread.〔Kao,DY., Wang, SJ., Huang, F., 'SoTE:Strategy of Triple-E on solving Trojan defense in Cyber-crime cases' (2010) Computer Law and Security Review 26, p.55.〕 ==Legal Issues== Law enforcement agencies must combat the increasing challenges posed by viruses and Trojan horses as they introduce an element of doubt in legal cases.〔Everett, C., ‘Viruses Bottleneck Prosecution’ (2003) Mayfield Press, Oxford, Computer Fraud & Security〕 Therefore, it is important to consider how a Trojan Horse Defense can be invoked and rebutted. How the Trojan horse defense is used:〔Brenner, S., Carrier, B., Henninger, J., ‘The Trojan Horse Defense in Cybercrime Cases’ (2004) 21 Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 1, p.17.〕 *Raise Reasonable Doubt: Deny any involvement in the crime charged and claim that it was committed by someone else. *Negate ''Mens Rea'': A useful alternative for those who cannot deny their conduct that could constitute as the ''actus reus'' of the crime. *Establishing the Defense: Present evidence establishing that a Trojan horse program (or a malware) was installed on the computer by someone else without any knowledge. Response of Prosecution:〔Brenner, S., Carrier, B., Henninger, J., ‘The Trojan Horse Defense in Cybercrime Cases’ (2004) 21 Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 1, p.22.〕 *Establish Computer Expertise: The defense is likely to argue that they have very limited knowledge on computer technology and therefore vulnerable to exploitation by an unknown hacker. To rebut such claim, it needs to be shown that the defendant has enough knowledge about computers to protect them. Those with computer expertise are less likely to become a victim to such an attack. *Negate the Factual Foundation of the Defense: Conduct a technical analysis of the defendant’s computer to determine the presence or absence of malware that could support the defense. If malware is found, there would be a thorough analysis of the computer in an attempt to show that the malware did not contribute to the criminal act. If malware is not found, prosecutors can use this to rebut the defendant's claim that a Trojan horse is responsible. Procedures followed by computer forensics experts to establish innocence or guilt:〔Everett, C., ‘Viruses Bottleneck Prosecution’ (2003) Mayfield Press, Oxford, Computer Fraud & Security〕 *Make a copy of the computer in question as early as possible to prevent contamination *Mount as a second disk onto another machine for experts to run a standard anti-virus program *If a Trojan is found, it is necessary to examine the totality of the circumstances and the quantity of incriminating materials *Determine the vulnerability *Consider the time and date stamps of offending materials to identify if materials has been uploaded on a regular basis or over a limited number of sessions 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Trojan horse defense」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|