Data Exfiltration Expert Witness

Access to a file does not, by itself, establish that the file left an organization. GDF correlates available device, identity, cloud and network evidence to assess alleged copying or transfer and explain what can be established.

An allegation of data theft should be broken into questions about access, copying, transfer and attribution. Different evidence may be needed for each. We identify the files or data at issue and the disputed period before assessing whether the available records support a transfer or only an opportunity to make one.

An examination may consider removable media, email attachments, cloud sharing, synchronization, downloads and network transfers. Relevant sources depend on the environment and may include endpoint artifacts, audit records, permissions and retained security telemetry.

A connected USB device, a cloud sign-in or a large network transfer can warrant examination without resolving the allegation. We consider whether ordinary work, backup or synchronization explains the activity. The opinion should state which explanation fits the records and what remains untested.

We distinguish what an account could access, what records show it accessed and what evidence supports a transfer. A transfer event may still leave uncertainty about content, destination control or the person responsible. Those limits are part of the opinion.

The examination correlates available endpoint, account and transfer records while accounting for their collection history and limits. File names alone may not establish identical content. Where the evidence supports a comparison of specific files, the report explains the basis rather than assuming that similarly named items are the same.

The work can produce a source-linked sequence, analysis of competing explanations and exhibits showing the evidence behind each conclusion. Missing logs do not establish that no data left, and suspicious activity does not justify assuming that every accessible file was taken.

An event timeline should distinguish possession of access rights, recorded file activity and evidence of movement to another destination. Counsel can then see which parts of the allegation have direct support. Gaps in the record and uncertainty about the person responsible remain explicit in reports and testimony.

A USB connection, a cloud sign-in or a large network transfer can justify closer examination. None necessarily identifies the files taken or the person responsible. We test the allegation against available file activity, device artifacts, application records and destination information.

In an illustrative departure dispute, a synchronization client may explain file activity that initially appears suspicious. The examination compares timing, destination, configuration and the relevant files with the employee’s authorized work. Where records support copying, we explain that support. Where they show only access or opportunity, we say so.

The final timeline should distinguish source files, recorded actions and inferred relationships. A gap in logs is not proof of no transfer, but it also does not justify treating every accessible file as stolen. Counsel receives the supported findings and the specific questions that remain unresolved.

• Microsoft: audit activity definitions ↗
• Google: Drive log events ↗

For data exfiltration expert witness work, discuss the disputed questions and the experience needed before defining the engagement. Robert Knudsen is profiled in our expert directory. Meet the GDF team and discuss the technology, questions and availability with us. The expert selected for a matter depends on its scope and the required experience.