Securing Remote Access: A Forensic Approach to Detect and Prevent Network Breaches

Abstract

Remote access technologies like Virtual Private Networks (VPN), Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), and Secure Shell (SSH) have become essential in today’s hybrid and cloud-based work environments. They provide smooth connectivity for distributed teams and allow remote management of important systems. However, relying more on these tools has also increased the risk of attacks. Organizations now face threats such as credential theft, brute-force intrusions, privilege escalation, session hijacking, and stealthy data theft. Traditional security measures often do not catch targeted or slow attacks, and incident response teams find it difficult to work with incomplete digital evidence or late detections.To tackle these issues, this paper presents the Forensic-Ready Remote Access Detection Framework (FRRAD), a security approach that merges forensic readiness with remote access monitoring. FRRAD integrates log anomaly detection, automated evidence preservation, behavioral analytics, Zero Trust access controls, and policy-based incident response. Unlike typical reactive models, this framework collects, validates, and securely stores forensic evidence consistently. This allows for quick investigations and adherence to regulations. By including investigative capabilities in remote access workflows, FRRAD improves threat visibility, shortens response times, boosts attribution accuracy, and enhances overall organizational strength against complex cyberattacks.

Introduction

The rise of remote and hybrid work has increased reliance on technologies like VPN, SSH, and RDP, creating new security risks. Rapid deployment, misconfigurations, weak authentication, and poor monitoring make remote access points attractive targets for cybercriminals. Threats include credential theft, phishing, brute-force attacks, malware, and VPN exploitation. Traditional perimeter-based security struggles with dynamic networks, enabling attackers to move laterally, escalate privileges, and steal data. Many organizations also lack forensic readiness, leaving them with incomplete logs and insufficient evidence for incident investigation or regulatory compliance.

Forensic-Driven Approach:
The text emphasizes integrating forensic readiness with Zero Trust principles to strengthen remote access security. This includes continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, and automated evidence preservation to detect threats early and maintain legally admissible forensic data.

Literature Review Highlights:

• Research stresses the importance of log anomaly detection, VPN security, and forensic-ready architectures.

• Transformer-based models like LAnoBERT improve detection accuracy in AI-driven forensic analysis.

• Integration of Zero Trust principles with forensic readiness enhances remote access security and investigation capabilities.

Proposed FRRAD Framework (Forensic-Ready Remote Access Detection):

• Core Concept: Combines proactive threat detection with automated forensic evidence collection.

• Key Modules:

  1. User Authentication & Access Control: Multi-factor and biometric authentication, role-based access, continuous risk assessment, secure VPN/SSH tunnels.

  2. Real-Time Activity Monitoring: Tracks user behaviors, system commands, file/network activity, and generates alerts for suspicious actions.

  3. Anomaly Detection: Uses ML/DL models (clustering, LSTM, LAnoBERT) to detect unusual login patterns, privilege escalation, and data exfiltration.

  4. Forensic Evidence Collection: Automatic preservation of memory snapshots, logs, session metadata, and chain-of-custody tracking.

  5. Incident Response & Isolation: Quarantines sessions, revokes tokens, blocks malicious IPs, and provides SOC with evidence.

  6. Post-Incident Analysis & Reporting: Reconstructs attacks, identifies compromise vectors, ensures compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS), and improves future prevention.

AI-Enhanced FRRAD (AI-FRRAD):

• Introduces predictive threat modeling, advanced anomaly detection, behavioral biometrics, and continuous authentication.

• Uses blockchain-based evidence integrity, federated learning for privacy-preserving AI, and cryptographic measures for tamper-proof forensic records.

• Enables proactive, intelligent, and legally defensible remote access security in cloud-native and hybrid environments.

Architecture:

• Layered and modular design integrates secure access, monitoring, AI-driven anomaly detection, automated forensic collection, and post-incident reporting.

• Ensures continuous threat detection, incident response, and forensic accountability, supporting regulatory compliance and improving overall cybersecurity posture.

Conclusion

The proposed FRRAD framework addresses critical limitations in traditional remote access defense mechanisms by embedding forensic readiness as a core operational component rather than a post-incident add-on. Unlike the conventional perimeter-based models, which mainly focus on access restriction and reactive incident handling, FRRAD integrates authentication, monitoring, anomaly detection, evidence management, and incident response into a continuous and intelligent workflow. This holistic integration will provide assurance that the remote sessions are not only protected against unauthorized access but also continuously monitored and automatically documented to support forensic accountability. A key innovation of the FRRAD architecture is its use of multi-factor authentication, device trust validation, behavioral biometrics, and principles of Zero Trust to ensure that user identity verification is dynamic and risk-driven. The framework also leverages AI-driven anomaly detection and predictive analytics for early detection of credential misuse, insider threats, advanced persistent intrusions, and abuse of VPN, RDP, and SSH endpoints. The automated forensic evidence collection module preserves volatile memory, logs, keystroke traces, network signatures, and artifact hashes, retaining an unbroken chain of custody. This readiness further reduces investigation delays, enhances the admissibility of evidence, and offers a solution for regulatory mandates such as ISO 27037, GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS. Specifically, it enhances reliability and privacy in the new FRRAD model through transformer-based anomaly detection, federated learning for distributed forensic analytics, and blockchain-based immutability for evidence integrity. These features let security teams analyze data securely without exposing the raw data, particularly in highly regulated segments such as health care, defense, finance, and critical infrastructure. The modular architecture is cloud-native, enabling scalability across enterprise, hybrid cloud, and edge ecosystems, thereby making this framework feasible for large-scale deployments in remote workforces, industrial IoT access, and distributed corporate environments. Accordingly, FRRAD provides an all-inclusive and proactive remote access security approach that prevents, detects, investigates, and documents cyber incidents in a simultaneous manner. By integrating forensic readiness and intelligent threat detection into the framework, operational risks are lowered while incident responses are accelerated, resulting in greater legal defensibility and enhanced organizational cyber resilience against emerging remote access threats

References

[1] L. Landauer, K. Hoffmann, and M. Bock, “A survey on deep learning for log anomaly detection,” Machine Learning Applications, vol. 2, pp. 110–129, 2023. [2] T. Himler, S. Krause, and B. Stein, “Challenges in DL-based forensic log analysis,” in Proc. EICC Conf., 2023, pp. 210–218. [3] A. Qollakaj, R. Patel, and M. Uddin, “VPN vulnerabilities in enterprise systems,” ScienceDirect, vol. 12, pp. 77–92, 2023. [4] S. Loureiro, “Security misconfigurations in enterprise environments,” Computers & Security, vol. 112, pp. 102513, 2021. [5] M. Firoozjaei, P. Kang, and T. Yoon, “Memory forensic tools and their operational effectiveness,” Digital Forensics Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 122–136, 2022. [6] Volatility Foundation, Volatility 3 Framework Documentation, 2023. [7] A. Daubner, K. Beckman, and H. Paul, “Designing forensic-ready systems,” Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 45–61, 2024. [8] M. Rizvi, S. Akbar, and O. Khan, “NetFoREdge: AI-driven network forensics for edge systems,” in Proc. Digital Forensics Conf., 2024, pp. 33–41. [9] Y. Lee, “LAnoBERT: Transformer-based log anomaly detection,” Journal of Systems Architecture, vol. 139, pp. 103–119, 2023. [10] Z. Zohaib, and M. Khan, “Zero Trust VPN architectures for remote access security,” MDPI Information, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1–16, 2024. [11] M. Xu, D. Yuan, and C. Li, “Zero Trust forensic gaps in enterprise SOC operations,” MDPI Security Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 51–65, 2025. [12] A. Shah, H. Kumar, and B. Alvi, “ML-based malware detection in remote access endpoints,” MDPI Electronics, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 79–91, 2022. [13] M. Shahin, S. Malik, and M. Ali, “A Two-Stage Hybrid Federated Learning Framework for Privacy-Preserving IoT Anomaly Detection,” IoT Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 48–60, Mar. 2025. [14] C. Xie, “Privacy-Preserving Federated Anomaly Detection Framework for Multi-Domain Network Security,” Journal of Computer Science and AI, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 64–72, Apr. 2025. [15] R. H. Chowdhury, S. Zaman, and L. Das, “The Role of Predictive Analytics in Cybersecurity,” WJARR, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 2494–2502, Apr. 2024. [16] S. Ndibe, “AI-Driven Forensic Systems for Real-Time Threat Mitigation,” Cybersecurity Infrastructures Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11–24, 2025. [17] J. Min, A. Choi, and H. Kang, “Policy-Driven Zero Trust Architecture Aligned With NIST Standards,” Electronics, vol. 14, no. 20, pp. 4109, 2025. [18] P. Mpungu, D. George, and G. Mapp, “Digital Forensic Readiness in Big Data Networks,” Forensics, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 90–101, 2024. [19] M. Albugmi, “Digital Forensic Readiness Framework (DFRF) for Secure Databases,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 112–121, 2024. [20] A. Alenezi, A. Atlam, and A. Walters, “Cloud Forensic Readiness and Its Impact on Security,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Cloud Sec., 2021, pp. 59–73. [21] P. Ali and R. Kavitha, “Forensic Investigation in Cybersecurity: Trends and Techniques,” IJMRSET, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 310–320, 2024. [22] S. Koli, R. Singh, and M. Kalra, “AI-Driven Insider Risk Management,” arXiv:2505.03796, May 2025. [23] S. Pokhrel et al., “Federated Learning and Blockchain for Zero Trust,” arXiv:2406.17172, 2024. [24] J. Pan, C. Wong, and Y. Yuan, “RAGLog: Log Anomaly Detection using RAG,” arXiv:2311.05261, 2023. [25] A. Alharthi and A. Garcia, “Cloud Investigation Automation Framework (CIAF),” arXiv:2510.00452, 2025.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Dr. Vairam T., Vijai Sundar B. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.