Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
As automation within digital forensic tools becomes more advanced there is a need for a systematic approach to ensure the validity, reliability, and standardization of digital forensic results. This paper argues for intermediate output in a standardized format within digital forensic tools to allow a methodical approach to tool validation that targets errors at each stage of processing. To achieve this, a detailed process model of digital forensic analysis tools is created, extrapolating the details of the internal processes performed by monolithic forensic tools. The research deconstructs the process flow within tools and presents an 'abstract digital forensic tool', revisiting earlier abstraction layer ideas. This not only identifies the interconnected processes within tools but allows discussion of the potential error that could be introduced at each stage, and how it could potentially propagate within a tool. A demonstration, with a dataset, is also included, structurally annotated using Cyber-investigation Analysis Standard Expression (CASE).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hargreaves et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: