Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE

Year 2022, Issue: 69, 45 - 62, 12.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.57083/adaletdergisi.1217741

Abstract

The evidence used to prove the material fact which is subject to the criminal procedure should not be changed until it is brought before the court. It is relatively easy to ensure the accuracy of physical evidences by taking them into judicial custody. However, it is difficult to ensure the accuracy of the digital evidence since it is easy to copy and modify it. Digital evidences are used to provide the technological means to ensure accuracy. The hash value, which provides a one-way summarization value, can be applied to digital evidence such as a fingerprint and helps to ensure the accuracy of the numerical evidence. However, a collision of hash value, known as the hash value conflict, which occurs when two different digital data have the same hash value, is a problematic area in ensuring the accuracy of numerical evidence. In this study, the concept of summary value as a means of ensuring the accuracy of numerical evidence will be explained and the possible effects of the hash value collision will be discussed

References

  • Aydın D, Ceza Muhakemesinde Deliller, Yetkin Publications, Ankara, 2014.
  • Bıçak V, Suç Muhakemesi Hukuku, 4th Edition, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2018.
  • Casey Eoghan, “Reconstruction Digital Evidence”, in: Crime Reconstruction, Edited by W. Jerry Chisum – Brent E. Turvey, 2006.
  • Centel N / Zafer H, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 14th Edition, Beta Publications, İstanbul, 2017.
  • Chisum W B / Turvey B E, Crime Reconstruction, Academic Press, 2007, s. XV.
  • Cumhur Ş, Ceza Muhakemesinde İspat (Delillerin Doğrudan Doğruyalığı İlkesi), Yetkin Publications, Ankara, 2001.
  • Daniel L / Daniel L, Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals Understanding Digital Evidence From The Warrant To The Courtroom, Syngress, USA, 2012.
  • Değirmenci O, “Bilgi Toplumunun Delil Türü: Sayısal Delil ve Bilimselliği”, Vol. 9, No. 97, Terazi Law Journal, Septermber, 2014, ss. 14 – 28.
  • Değirmenci O, Ceza Muhakemesinde Sayısal (Dijital) Delil, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2014.
  • Digital Evidence in the Courtroom: A Guide for Preparing Digital Evidence for Courtroom Presentation, The National Center for Forensic Science, 2003, http:/www.ncfs.org/DE_courtroomdraft.pdf, accessed: 10.09.2011.
  • Doğan K, Ceza Muhakemesinde Belirsizlik Kuşkudan Sanık Yararlanır İlkesi “in dubio pro reo”, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2016.
  • Erdem B/Işıtman N M, Basic Legal Documents of Turkish Criminal Law, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2021.
  • Eryılmaz A, Ceza ve Disiplin Hukukunda Hukuka Aykırı Delil, HUKAB Publications, Ankara, 2013.
  • Feyzioğlu M, Ceza Muhakemesinde Vicdani Kanaat, Ankara, 2002.
  • Gedik D, Öğreti ve Yargısal İçtihatlar Işığında Ceza Muhakemesinde Şüpheden Sanık Yararlanır İlkesi (In Dubio Pro Reo), Adalet Publications, 2016.
  • Harrington M, “A Methodology for Digital Forensic”, Vol. 7, 2004, T.M. Cooley J. Parc. & Clinical L.
  • Hoffman S, “An Illustration of Hashing and Its Effect on Illegal File Content in the Digital Age”, Vol. 22, No. 4, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Review, April 2010, ss. 6 – 14.
  • Hoffmann M, “Arguing for Suppression of ‘Hash’ Evidence”, May 2009, The Champion.
  • Hricik D, “The Transmission and Receipt of Invisible Confidential Information”, http//www.hricik.com/eethics/Metadata1103.doc, accessed: 06 Ocak 2013.
  • http://thinkexist.com/quotes/susan_brenner/, accessed 01 February 2014.
  • https://md5.hesaplama.net/hesaplama.do, accessed 05 Aralık 2017.
  • Israel A, “To Scrub or Not to Scrub: The Ethical Implications of Metadata and Electronic Data Creation, Exchange, and Discovery, Vol. 60, 2009, Alabama Law Review.
  • Jekot W, “Computer Forensics, Search Strategies, and the Particularity Requirement”, Vol. VII, Spriing 2007, Pittsburgh University Journal of Technology Law and Policy, https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2007.29.
  • Koca M, “Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Deliller”, Vol. 1, Nu. 2, December 2016, Journal of Criminal Law, ss. 207 – 225.
  • Kruse W G/Heise J G, Computer Forensic: Incident Response Essentials, 2002.
  • Kunter N, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, Revised and Enhanced 4th Edition, İstanbul, 1970.
  • Larkin J E D, “Compelled Production of Encrypted Data”, Vol. 14, Number 2, Winter 2012, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, ss. 253 – 278.
  • Maghaireh A M S, Jordanian Cybercrime Investigations: A Comparative Analysis of Search for and Seizure of Digital Evidence, Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree, University of Wollonong 2009.
  • Mendel F/Pramstaller N/Rechberger C/Kontak M/Szmidt J, “Cryptanalysis of the GOST Hash Function”, in: CRYPTO 2008, LNCS 5157 (Ed. D. Wagner), Springer 2008, ss. 162 – 178.
  • Nedir Bu Adli Bilimler/Kimdir Bu Adli Bilimciler, Adli Bilimciler Derneği Yayını, Ankara, 2019.
  • Newby T/Schwarz J M, “Rethinking The Storage of Computer Evidence”, UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 79, December 2009, Tokyo.
  • Robinton L R, “Courting Chaos: Conflicting Guidance from Courts Highlights The Need for Clearer Rules to Govern the Search and Seizure of Digital Evidence”, Vol. 12, 2010, Yale Journal of Law and Technology, ss. 311 – 147.
  • Roxin C, “İspat Hukukunun Esasları”, Translator Yener Ünver, Y. 4, No. 8, Fall 2005, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, ss. 265 – 289.
  • Schuck C M, “A Search for the Caselaw to Support the Computer Search ‘Guidance’ in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing”, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2012, Lewis & Clark Law Review, ss. 741 – 781.
  • Selçuk S, “Temyiz Denetiminin Sınırları ve Bu Sınırlara Uymamanın Kaçınılmaz Sancılı Sonuçları/Açmazları/Tehlikeleri”, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Prof.Dr. Nur Centel’e Armağan, ss. 319 – 361.
  • Sommer P, “Downloads, Logs and Captures: Evidence from Cyberspace”, Vol. 5, Journal of Financial Crime.
  • Sutton D, “Computer Forensics and Child Pornography Investigations”, Vol. 2, 2011, Stevenson University Forensics Journal.
  • Şahin C/Göktürk N, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku – II, Revised and Updated 8th Edition, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2019.
  • Thompson E, “MD5 Collisions and the Impact on Computer Forensics”, Vol. 2, 2005, Digital Investigation, ss. 36 – 40.
  • Tosun Ö, Türk Suç Muhakemesi Hukuku Dersleri Vol.:1, İstanbul, 1984.
  • Türkbağ A U, “Hukuka Gerçekçi Eleştirel Bakış: Hukuk Sosyolojisi”, Issue 16, 2008/1, Sosyoloji Dergisi, 3rd Series, s. 43 – 54.
  • Uzunay Y/Koçak M, “Bilişim Suçları Kapsamında Dijital Deliller”, Academic Informatics Conference, Gaziantep, February 2005.
  • Yayla M, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda İspat ve Şüphe, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2016.

Sayısal Delilin Değiştirilemezliğinin Sağlanmasının Yolu Olarak Özet Değer Kavramı ve Özet Değer Çakışması

Year 2022, Issue: 69, 45 - 62, 12.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.57083/adaletdergisi.1217741

Abstract

Ceza muhakemesine konu maddi olayı ispatlamak için kullanılan delil, mahkemenin önüne getirilene kadar değiştirilmemelidir. Fiziksel delillerin, adli emanete alınması suretiyle doğruluklarını sağlamak nispeten kolaydır. Bununla birlikte sayısal delillerin kolayca kopyalanabilmeleri ve değiştirilebilmeleri, doğruluklarının sağlanması güçtür. Sayısal delillerin doğruluklarını temin etmek için teknolojik olanaklardan yararlanılmaktadır. Tek yönlü özetleme değeri sağlayan özet değer (hash value), bir parmak izi gibi sayısal delile uygulanabilmekte ve sayısal delilin doğruluğunu sağlamaya yardımcı olmaktadır. Ancak iki farklı sayısal verinin aynı özet değere sahip olması olan özet değer çakışması, sayısal delilin doğruluğunu sağlamada sorunlu bir alandır. Bu çalışmada sayısal delilin doğruluğunu sağlama aracı olarak özet değer kavramı açıklanacak ve özet değerin çakışmasının muhtemel etkilerine değinilecektir.

References

  • Aydın D, Ceza Muhakemesinde Deliller, Yetkin Publications, Ankara, 2014.
  • Bıçak V, Suç Muhakemesi Hukuku, 4th Edition, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2018.
  • Casey Eoghan, “Reconstruction Digital Evidence”, in: Crime Reconstruction, Edited by W. Jerry Chisum – Brent E. Turvey, 2006.
  • Centel N / Zafer H, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 14th Edition, Beta Publications, İstanbul, 2017.
  • Chisum W B / Turvey B E, Crime Reconstruction, Academic Press, 2007, s. XV.
  • Cumhur Ş, Ceza Muhakemesinde İspat (Delillerin Doğrudan Doğruyalığı İlkesi), Yetkin Publications, Ankara, 2001.
  • Daniel L / Daniel L, Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals Understanding Digital Evidence From The Warrant To The Courtroom, Syngress, USA, 2012.
  • Değirmenci O, “Bilgi Toplumunun Delil Türü: Sayısal Delil ve Bilimselliği”, Vol. 9, No. 97, Terazi Law Journal, Septermber, 2014, ss. 14 – 28.
  • Değirmenci O, Ceza Muhakemesinde Sayısal (Dijital) Delil, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2014.
  • Digital Evidence in the Courtroom: A Guide for Preparing Digital Evidence for Courtroom Presentation, The National Center for Forensic Science, 2003, http:/www.ncfs.org/DE_courtroomdraft.pdf, accessed: 10.09.2011.
  • Doğan K, Ceza Muhakemesinde Belirsizlik Kuşkudan Sanık Yararlanır İlkesi “in dubio pro reo”, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2016.
  • Erdem B/Işıtman N M, Basic Legal Documents of Turkish Criminal Law, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2021.
  • Eryılmaz A, Ceza ve Disiplin Hukukunda Hukuka Aykırı Delil, HUKAB Publications, Ankara, 2013.
  • Feyzioğlu M, Ceza Muhakemesinde Vicdani Kanaat, Ankara, 2002.
  • Gedik D, Öğreti ve Yargısal İçtihatlar Işığında Ceza Muhakemesinde Şüpheden Sanık Yararlanır İlkesi (In Dubio Pro Reo), Adalet Publications, 2016.
  • Harrington M, “A Methodology for Digital Forensic”, Vol. 7, 2004, T.M. Cooley J. Parc. & Clinical L.
  • Hoffman S, “An Illustration of Hashing and Its Effect on Illegal File Content in the Digital Age”, Vol. 22, No. 4, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Review, April 2010, ss. 6 – 14.
  • Hoffmann M, “Arguing for Suppression of ‘Hash’ Evidence”, May 2009, The Champion.
  • Hricik D, “The Transmission and Receipt of Invisible Confidential Information”, http//www.hricik.com/eethics/Metadata1103.doc, accessed: 06 Ocak 2013.
  • http://thinkexist.com/quotes/susan_brenner/, accessed 01 February 2014.
  • https://md5.hesaplama.net/hesaplama.do, accessed 05 Aralık 2017.
  • Israel A, “To Scrub or Not to Scrub: The Ethical Implications of Metadata and Electronic Data Creation, Exchange, and Discovery, Vol. 60, 2009, Alabama Law Review.
  • Jekot W, “Computer Forensics, Search Strategies, and the Particularity Requirement”, Vol. VII, Spriing 2007, Pittsburgh University Journal of Technology Law and Policy, https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2007.29.
  • Koca M, “Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Deliller”, Vol. 1, Nu. 2, December 2016, Journal of Criminal Law, ss. 207 – 225.
  • Kruse W G/Heise J G, Computer Forensic: Incident Response Essentials, 2002.
  • Kunter N, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, Revised and Enhanced 4th Edition, İstanbul, 1970.
  • Larkin J E D, “Compelled Production of Encrypted Data”, Vol. 14, Number 2, Winter 2012, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, ss. 253 – 278.
  • Maghaireh A M S, Jordanian Cybercrime Investigations: A Comparative Analysis of Search for and Seizure of Digital Evidence, Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree, University of Wollonong 2009.
  • Mendel F/Pramstaller N/Rechberger C/Kontak M/Szmidt J, “Cryptanalysis of the GOST Hash Function”, in: CRYPTO 2008, LNCS 5157 (Ed. D. Wagner), Springer 2008, ss. 162 – 178.
  • Nedir Bu Adli Bilimler/Kimdir Bu Adli Bilimciler, Adli Bilimciler Derneği Yayını, Ankara, 2019.
  • Newby T/Schwarz J M, “Rethinking The Storage of Computer Evidence”, UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 79, December 2009, Tokyo.
  • Robinton L R, “Courting Chaos: Conflicting Guidance from Courts Highlights The Need for Clearer Rules to Govern the Search and Seizure of Digital Evidence”, Vol. 12, 2010, Yale Journal of Law and Technology, ss. 311 – 147.
  • Roxin C, “İspat Hukukunun Esasları”, Translator Yener Ünver, Y. 4, No. 8, Fall 2005, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, ss. 265 – 289.
  • Schuck C M, “A Search for the Caselaw to Support the Computer Search ‘Guidance’ in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing”, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2012, Lewis & Clark Law Review, ss. 741 – 781.
  • Selçuk S, “Temyiz Denetiminin Sınırları ve Bu Sınırlara Uymamanın Kaçınılmaz Sancılı Sonuçları/Açmazları/Tehlikeleri”, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Prof.Dr. Nur Centel’e Armağan, ss. 319 – 361.
  • Sommer P, “Downloads, Logs and Captures: Evidence from Cyberspace”, Vol. 5, Journal of Financial Crime.
  • Sutton D, “Computer Forensics and Child Pornography Investigations”, Vol. 2, 2011, Stevenson University Forensics Journal.
  • Şahin C/Göktürk N, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku – II, Revised and Updated 8th Edition, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2019.
  • Thompson E, “MD5 Collisions and the Impact on Computer Forensics”, Vol. 2, 2005, Digital Investigation, ss. 36 – 40.
  • Tosun Ö, Türk Suç Muhakemesi Hukuku Dersleri Vol.:1, İstanbul, 1984.
  • Türkbağ A U, “Hukuka Gerçekçi Eleştirel Bakış: Hukuk Sosyolojisi”, Issue 16, 2008/1, Sosyoloji Dergisi, 3rd Series, s. 43 – 54.
  • Uzunay Y/Koçak M, “Bilişim Suçları Kapsamında Dijital Deliller”, Academic Informatics Conference, Gaziantep, February 2005.
  • Yayla M, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda İspat ve Şüphe, Seçkin Publications, Ankara, 2016.
There are 43 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Law in Context
Journal Section KAMU HUKUKU
Authors

Olgun Değirmenci 0000-0002-0700-2549

Publication Date December 12, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Issue: 69

Cite

APA Değirmenci, O. (2022). THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE. Adalet Dergisi(69), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.57083/adaletdergisi.1217741
AMA Değirmenci O. THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE. AD. December 2022;(69):45-62. doi:10.57083/adaletdergisi.1217741
Chicago Değirmenci, Olgun. “THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE”. Adalet Dergisi, no. 69 (December 2022): 45-62. https://doi.org/10.57083/adaletdergisi.1217741.
EndNote Değirmenci O (December 1, 2022) THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE. Adalet Dergisi 69 45–62.
IEEE O. Değirmenci, “THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE”, AD, no. 69, pp. 45–62, December 2022, doi: 10.57083/adaletdergisi.1217741.
ISNAD Değirmenci, Olgun. “THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE”. Adalet Dergisi 69 (December 2022), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.57083/adaletdergisi.1217741.
JAMA Değirmenci O. THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE. AD. 2022;:45–62.
MLA Değirmenci, Olgun. “THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE”. Adalet Dergisi, no. 69, 2022, pp. 45-62, doi:10.57083/adaletdergisi.1217741.
Vancouver Değirmenci O. THE CONCEPT OF HASH VALUE AND THE COLLISION OF HASH VALUE AS THE WAY TO PROVIDE UNASSAILABILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE. AD. 2022(69):45-62.

ADALET BAKANLIĞI
Eğitim Dairesi Başkanlığı
Emniyet Mahallesi, Mevlana Bulvarı No:36 Kat: 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 Yenimahalle / ANKARA
Tel: (0312) 219 75 92 - (0312) 219 54 85, Belge Geçer: (0312) 219 64 17
e-posta: dergiadalet@gmail.com