Digital forensics : an integrated approach for the investigation of cyber/computer related crimes

Digital forensics has become a predominant field in recent times and courts have had to deal with an influx of related cases over the past decade. As computer/cyber related criminal attacks become more predominant in today’s technologically driven society the need for and use of, digital evidence in courts has increased. There is the urgent need to hold perpetrators of such crimes accountable and successfully prosecuting them. The process used to acquire this digital evidence (to be used in cases in courts) is digital forensics. The procedures currently used in the digital forensic process were developed focusing on particular areas of the digital evidence acquisition process. This has resulted in very little regard being made for the core components of the digital forensics field, for example the legal and ethical along with other integral aspects of investigations as a whole. These core facets are important for a number of reasons including the fact that other forensic sciences have included them, and to survive as a true forensics discipline digital forensics must ensure that they are accounted for. This is because, digital forensics like other forensics disciplines must ensure that the evidence (digital evidence) produced from the process is able to withstand the rigors of a courtroom. Digital forensics is a new and developing field still in its infancy when compared to traditional forensics fields such as botany or anthropology. Over the years development in the field has been tool centered, being driven by commercial developers of the tools used in the digital investigative process. This, along with having no set standards to guide digital forensics practitioners operating in the field has led to issues regarding the reliability, verifiability and consistency of digital evidence when presented in court cases. Additionally some developers have neglected the fact that the mere mention of the word forensics suggests courts of law, and thus legal practitioners will be intimately involved. Such omissions have resulted in the digital evidence being acquired for use in

[1]  Uta Kohl Legal reasoning and legal change in the age of the internet - why the ground rules are still valid , 1999, Int. J. Law Inf. Technol..

[2]  Kit Burden,et al.  Internet crime: Cyber Crime - A new breed of criminal? , 2003, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[3]  Gary C. Kessler,et al.  Pedagogy and Overview of a Graduate Program in Digital Investigation Management , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[4]  D. Prasad Data Collection Strategies in Mixed Method Research , 2012 .

[5]  Matthew Meyers,et al.  Computer Forensics: The Need for Standardization and Certification , 2004, Int. J. Digit. EVid..

[6]  Eugene H. Spafford,et al.  An Event-Based Digital Forensic Investigation Framework , 2004 .

[7]  Sundresan Perumal Digital Forensic Model Based On Malaysian Investigation Process , 2009 .

[8]  Lawrence A. Presley,et al.  Recovering and Examining Computer Forensic Evidence , 2000 .

[9]  Ewa Huebner,et al.  Computer forensics: past, present and future , 2003, Inf. Secur. Tech. Rep..

[10]  Gavin W. Manes,et al.  New Federal Rules and Digital Evidence , 2007 .

[11]  R. Weber Editor's comments: the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view , 2004 .

[12]  Eoghan Casey Bs Ma Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet , 2000 .

[13]  Rahul Bhaskar State and local law enforcement is not ready for a cyber Katrina , 2006, CACM.

[14]  J. Gerring Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework , 2001 .

[15]  Janet J. Prichard,et al.  Cyber Terrorism: A Study of the Extent of Coverage in Computer Science Textbooks , 2004, J. Inf. Technol. Educ..

[16]  Jan H. P. Eloff,et al.  UML Modelling of Digital Forensic Process Models (DFPMs) , 2008, ISSA.

[17]  Eugene H. Spafford,et al.  Getting Physical with the Digital Investigation Process , 2003, Int. J. Digit. EVid..

[18]  S. Sieber The Integration of Fieldwork and Survey Methods , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[19]  David Chaikin,et al.  Network investigations of cyber attacks: the limits of digital evidence , 2007 .

[20]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[21]  Naresh R. Pandit The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory method , 1996 .

[22]  T. Kuhn,et al.  Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? , 1970 .

[23]  Matt Bishop,et al.  Digital Forensics: Defining a Research Agenda , 2009 .

[24]  Gregory H. Carlton,et al.  A protocol for the forensic data acquisition of personal computer workstations , 2006 .

[25]  Orin S. Kerr Searches and Seizures in a Digital World , 2005 .

[26]  Erin E. Kenneally,et al.  Risk sensitive digital evidence collection , 2005, Digit. Investig..

[27]  Anna Carlin,et al.  Is the Open Way a Better Way? Digital Forensics Using Open Source Tools , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

[28]  Marcus K. Rogers,et al.  The future of computer forensics: a needs analysis survey , 2004, Comput. Secur..

[29]  K. Brazil,et al.  Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research , 2002, Quality & quantity.

[30]  Gillian Symon,et al.  Electronic interviews in organizational research , 2004 .

[31]  Mark Pollitt,et al.  Master's Degree in Digital Forensics , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

[32]  Ankit Agarwal,et al.  Systematic Digital Forensic Investigation Model , 2011 .

[33]  Gregg H. Gunsch,et al.  An Examination of Digital Forensic Models , 2002, Int. J. Digit. EVid..