Overcoming Impediments to Cell Phone Forensics

Jansen, Wayne; Delaitre, Aurélien; Moenner, Ludovic

doi:10.1109/hicss.2008.341

Cited by 32 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The main focus has been to understand these relatively new potential digital crime scenes. To this effect, there have been several studies mapping out the areas such as [48] [55], [56] and [57] have discussed the challenges that DFIR faces in mobile environments.…”

Section: Digital Forensics and Incident Response In Networked Environmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Distributed Forensics and Incident Response in Loosely Controlled Networked Environments

Homem¹,

Kanter²,

Rahmani³

2016

IJSIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Digital Forensics and Incident Response In Networked Environmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Distributed Forensics and Incident Response in Loosely Controlled Networked Environments

Homem¹,

Kanter²,

Rahmani³

2016

IJSIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MDFTs are the main tools aside synchronization software, which are used in the extraction of data from MDs (Jansen et al, 2008). In fact, they form an interface with which the examiner can connect to the MD to view, extract or examine its contents (Williamson & Apeldoorn, 2005).…”

Section: Mobile Device Forensics Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is why, (Jansen, Delaitre, & Moenner, 2008) assert that these tools should be reliable enough to provide valid results, which can be admissible in the court of law. In the course of this research, the term validity refers to the ability of the tool to identify, extract and reconstruct a digital object in the same state as the MD user was presented with.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The tools should produce valid results based on what is really needed in terms of data objects that are admissible in the court of law (Jansen et al, 2008). Most of the investigators face a great challenge of selecting the appropriate tool capable of producing a forensically sound evidence (Kubi, Saleem, & Popov, 2011;Saleem, Popov, & Baggili, 2014;Saleem, Popov, & Kubi, 2013;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testing Framework for Mobile Device Forensics Tools

Anobah

Saleem

Popov

2014

JDFSL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proliferation of mobile communication and computing devices, in particular smart mobile phones, is almost paralleled with the increasing number of mobile device forensics tools in the market. Each mobile forensics tool vendor, on one hand claims to have a tool that is best in terms of performance, while on the other hand each tool vendor seems to be using different standards for testing their tools and thereby defining what support means differently. To overcome this problem, a testing framework based on a series of tests ranging from basic forensics tasks such as file system reconstruction up to more complex ones countering antiforensic techniques is proposed. The framework, which is an extension of an existing effort done in 2010, prescribes a method to clearly circumscribe the term support into precise levels. It also gives an idea of the standard to be developed and accepted by the forensic community that will make it easier for forensics investigators to quickly select the most appropriate tool for a particular mobile device.

show abstract

“…Knowing this information may help an examiner at certain points in the examination. It may even help to negate or support the testimony of a potential witness, victim, or offender [2] and [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%