Forensic Assignment 9
Abhi
ForensicModels.pdf
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
DOI : 10.5121/ijcsit.2011.3302 17
COMMON PHASES OF COMPUTER FORENSICS
INVESTIGATION MODELS
Yunus Yusoff, Roslan Ismail and Zainuddin Hassan
College of Information Technology, Universiti Tenaga Nasional,
Selangor, Malaysia [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The increasing criminal activities using digital information as the means or targets warrant for a
structured manner in dealing with them. Since 1984 when a formalized process been introduced, a great
number of new and improved computer forensic investigation processes have been developed. In this
paper, we reviewed a few selected investigation processes that have been produced throughout the years
and then identified the commonly shared processes. Hopefully, with the identification of the commonly
shard process, it would make it easier for the new users to understand the processes and also to serve as
the basic underlying concept for the development of a new set of processes. Based on the commonly
shared processes, we proposed a generic computer forensics investigation model, known as GCFIM.
KEYWORDS
Computer Forensic Models, Computer Forensic Investigation
1. INTRODUCTION
The increasing criminal activities using digital information as the means or targets warrant for a
structured manner in dealing with them. As more information is stored in digital form, it is very
likely that the evidence needed to prosecute the criminals is also in digital form.
As early as 1984, the FBI Laboratory and other law enforcement agencies began developing
programs to examine computer evidence [1]. The process or procedure adopted in performing
the computer forensic investigation has a direct influence to the outcome of the investigation.
Choosing the inappropriate investigative processes may lead to incomplete or missing evidence.
Bypassing one step or switching any of the steps may lead to inconclusive results; therefore give
rise to invalid conclusions. Evidences captured in an ad hoc or unstructured manner may risks
of not being admissible in the court of law.
It is indeed very crucial for the computer forensics investigator to conduct their work properly
as all of their actions are subjected to scrutiny by the judiciary should the case be presented in
the court. The presence of a standard structured process does in a way provide a suitable
mechanism to be followed by the computer forensic investigators.
Over the years, there were a number of investigation models being proposed by various authors.
Based on our observation, some of the models tend to be applicable to a very specific scenario
while other may be applied to a wider scope. Some of the models tend to be quite detail and
others may be too general. It may be a bit difficult or even confusing, especially to the junior
forensic investigator to adopt the correct or appropriate investigation model. It is of our
intention to analyse the various available models and extract the common phases and propose a
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
18
new general purpose model so that we can have a common starting model that would be
applicable to any scenarios.
1.1. Terminologies
In the course of performing the reviews, we have discovered that different terms were used by
various authors, in order to reflect the processes taken to perform the proposed investigation.
Among the terms used were model, procedure, process, phase, tasks, etc. In order not to be
drawn into a lengthy discussion as to which terms is best to be used, we choose to still maintain
whatever terms used by the original authors, when describing their respective processes.
However, when conducting comparison and indentifying common characteristics, we need to
use one term only (for the purpose of standardization) and chose the term “model” to represent
the entire activities performed in a computer forensic investigation. The term “phase” is used to
represent the high level component of the investigation model and the term “tasks” is used to
represent activities to be performed in each of the phases.
2. INVESTIGATION PROCESS REVIEWED
The number of suggested and proposed investigation models is not small, as such, it would be
quite a daunting exercise to review them all. We have indeed, selected the models to be
reviewed based on the chronological order, ensuring at least one proposed model per year. We
are not suggesting that the selected models are better or superior than the other models that were
also introduced in the same year. Our objective is to identify and extract the phases in the
investigation models rather than selecting which model is the best.
2.1. Computer Forensic Investigative Process (1984)
Pollitt [2] [3] has proposed a methodology for dealing with digital evidence investigation so that
the results with be scientifically reliable and legally acceptable. It comprises of 4 distinct
phases.
Figure 1: Computer Forensic Investigative Process
In Acquisition phase, evidence was acquired in acceptable manner with proper approval from
authority. It is followed by Identification phase whereby the tasks to identify the digital
components from the acquired evidence and converting it to the format understood by human.
The Evaluation phase comprise of the task to determine whether the components indentified in
the previous phase, is indeed relevant to the case being investigated and can be considered as a
legitimate evidence. In the final phase, Admission, the acquired & extracted evidence is
presented in the court of law.
2.2. DFRWS Investigative Model (2001)
In 2001, the 1st Digital Forensics Research Workshop (DFRWS) [4] proposed a general
purpose digital forensics investigation process. It comprises of 6 phases.
Acquisition Identification Evaluation Admission
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
19
Figure2: DFRWS Investigative Model
DFRWS Investigative model started with an Identification phase, in which profile detection,
system monitoring, audit analysis, etc, were performed. It is immediately followed by
Preservation phase, involving tasks such as setting up a proper case management and ensuring
an acceptable chain of custody. This phase is crucial so as to ensure that the data collected is
free from contamination. The next phase is known as Collection, in which relevant data are
being collected based on the approved methods utilizing various recovery techniques. Following
this phase are two crucial phases, namely, Examination phase and Analysis phase. In these two
phases, tasks such as evidence tracing, evidence validation, recovery of hidden/encrypted data,
data mining, timeline, etc, were performed. The last phase is Presentation. Tasks related to this
phase are documentation, expert testimony, etc.
2.3. Abstract Digital Forensics Model (ADFM) (2002)
Inspired by DFRWS investigative model, Reith, Carr & Gunsch [5], proposed an enhanced
model known as Abstract Digital Forensic Model. In this model, the author introduced three
additional phases, thus expanding the number of phases to nine.
Figure 3: Abstract Digital Forensics Model
Identification
Preparation
Approach Strategy
Preservation
Collection
Examination
Analysis
Presentation
Returning Evidence
Identification
Preservation
Collection
Examination
Analysis
Presentation
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
20
The 3 significant phases introduced in this model were Preparation, Approach Strategy and
Returning Evidence. In Preparation phase, activity such as preparing tools, identify techniques
and getting management support, were done. Approach Strategy was introduced with the
objective to maximize the acquisition of untainted evidence and at the same time to minimize
any negative impact to the victim and surrounding people. In order to ensure that evidences are
safely return to the rightful owner or properly disposed, the Returning Evidence phase was also
introduced.
The 1 st phase in ADFM is Identification phase. In this phase, the task to recognize and
determine type of incident is performed. Once the incident type was ascertained, the next phase,
Preparation, is conducted, followed by Approach Strategy phase. Physical and digital data
acquired must be properly isolated, secured and preserved. There is also a need to pay attention
to a proper chain of custody. All of these tasks are performed under Preservation phase. Next is
the Collection phase, whereby, data extraction and duplication were done. Identification and
locating the potential evidence from the collected data, using a systematic approach are
conducted in the next following phase, known as Examination phase. The task of determining
the significant of evidence and drawing conclusion based on the evidence found is done in
Analysis phase. In the following phase, Presentation phase, the findings are summarized and
presented. The investigation processes is completed with the carrying out of Returning
Evidence phase.
2.4. Integrated Digital Investigation Process (IDIP) (2003)
This investigation process was proposed by Carrier & Spafford [6] in 2003, with the intention to
combine the various available investigative processes into one integrated model. The author
introduces the concept of digital crime scene which refers to the virtual environment created by
software and hardware where digital evidence of a crime or incident exists.
Figure 4: Integrated Digital Investigation Process
The process started with a phase that require for the physical and operational infrastructure to be
ready to support any future investigation. In this Readiness phase, the equipments must be ever
ready and the personnel must be capable to use it effectively. This phase is indeed an ongoing
phase throughout the lifecycle of an organization. It also consists of 2 sub-phases namely,
Operation Readiness and Infrastructure Readiness. Immediately following the Readiness phase,
is Deployment phase, which provide a mechanism for an incident to be detected and confirmed.
Two sub-phases are further introduced, namely, Detection & Notification and Confirmation &
Authorization. Collecting and analyzing physical evidence are done in Physical Crime Scene
Investigation phase. The sub-phases introduced are Preservation, Survey, Documentation,
Search & Collection, Reconstruction and Presentation. Digital Crime Scene Investigation is
similar to Physical Crime Scene Investigation with exception that it is now focusing on the
digital evidence in digital environment. The last phase is Review phase. The whole
Digital Crime
Investigation
Readiness Deployment Physical Crime
Investigation Review
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
21
investigation processes are reviewed to identify areas of improvement that may results in new
procedures or new training requirements.
2.5. Enhanced Digital Investigation Process Model (EDIP) (2004)
As the name implies, this investigative model is based on the previous model, Integrated Digital
Investigation Process (IDIP), as proposed by Carrier & Spafford. The Enhanced Digital
Investigation Process Model, also known as EDIP [7] introduces one significant phase known as
Traceback phase. This is to enable the investigator to trace back all the way to the actual
devices/computer used by the criminal to perform the crime.
Figure 5: Enhanced Digital Investigation Process Model
The investigation process started with Readiness phase and the tasks performed are the same as
in IDIP. The second phase, Deployment phase, provides a mechanism for an incident to be
detected and confirmed. It consists of 5 sub-phases namely Detection & Notification, Physical
Crime Scene Investigation, Digital Crime Scene Investigation, Confirmation and
lastly,Submision. Unlike DIP, this phase includes both physical and digital crime scene
investigations and presentation of findings to legal entities (via Submission phase). In Tracebak
phase, tracking down the source crime scene, including the devices and location is the main
objective. It is supported by two sub-phases namely, Digital Crime Scene Investigation and
Authorization (obtaining approval to perform investigation and accessing information).
Following Traceback phase is Dynamite phase. In this phase, investigation are conducted at the
primary crime scene, with the purpose of identifying the potential culprit(s). Consist of 4 sub-
phases, namely, Physical Crime Scene Investigation, Digital Crime Scene Investigation,
Reconstruction and Communication. In Reconstruction sub-phase, pieces of information
collected are put together so as to construct to possible events that could have happened. The
Communication sub-phase is similar to the previous Submission phase. The investigation
process ended with Readiness phase and the tasks performed are the same as in IDIP.
2.6. Computer Forensics Field Triage Process Model (CFFTPM) (2006)
The CTTTPM [8] proposes an onsite approach to providing the identification, analysis
and interpretation of digital evidence in a relatively short time frame without the need to
take back the devices or media back to the lab. Nor does it require taking the complete
forensic images. The CFFTPM consist of 6 primary phases that are then further divided
into another 6 sub-phases
Readiness
Deployment
Traceback
Dynamite
Review
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
22
Figure 6: Computer Forensics Field Triage Process Model
CFFTPM started with a familiar phase, Planning phase. Proper planning prior to embarking an
investigation will surely improve the success rate of an investigation. Following Planning phase
is Triage phase. In this phase, the evidence are identified and ranked in terms of importance or
priority. Evidence with the most important and volatile need to be processed first. The User
Usage Profile phase focus its attention to analyse user activity and profile with the objective of
relating evidence to the suspect. Building the crime case from chronological perspective by
making use of MAC time (for example) to sequence the probable crime activities is the main
objective of Chronology Timeline phase. In the Internet phase, the tasks of examining the
artefacts of internet related services are performed. Lastly, in Case Specific Evidence phase, the
investigator can adjust the focus of the examination to the specifics of the case such as the focus
in child pornography would indeed be different than that of financial crime cases.
2.7. Digital Forensic Model based on Malaysian Investigation Process (DFMMIP)
(2009)
In 2009, Perumal, S. [9] proposed yet another digital forensic investigation model which
is based on the Malaysian investigation processes. The DFMMIP model consist of 7
phases.
Planning
User Usage
Profile
Triage
Chronology
Timeline
Internet
Case Specific
Home
File Properties
Registry
Browser
IM
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
23
Figure 7: DFMMIP model
Upon completion of the 1 st phase, Planning, the next phase, Identification, followed. After
that, Reconnaissance phase is conducted. This phase deals with conducting the investigation
while the devices are still running (in operation) which is similar to performing live forensics.
The author argued that the presence of live data acquisition that focuses on fragile evidence
does increase the chances of positive prosecution. Before data can be analyzed, they must be
securely transported to the investigation site and be properly stored. This is indeed done in
Transport & Storage phase. Once the data is ready, Analysis phase is invoked and the data
will be analyzed and examined using the appropriate tools and techniques. Similar to the
Presentation phase in the previous models, the investigators will be required to show the proof
to support the presented case. This is done in Proof & Defense phase. Finally, Archive Storage
phase is performed, whereby relevant evidence are properly stored for future references and
perhaps can also be used for training purposes.
3. OTHER INVESTIGATION PROCESS REVIEWED
Due to the impractically of reviewing more models with the same details as above, we have
decided to create this section to still discuss on other investigation models. However, in this
section, we only highlight the phases which are the uppermost level of the investigation process.
There are also presented in the chronological order and the fact they are discussed in this section
does not indicate that they are inferior to those investigation processes discuss in Section 2.
3.1. Scientific Crime Scene Investigation Model (2001) [10]
Figure 8: SCSI
Recognition
Identification
Individualization
Reconstruction
Planning
Identification
Reconnaissance
Transport & Storage
Analysis
Proof & Defense
Archive Storage
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
24
3.2. End to End Digital Investigation (2003) [11]
Figure 9: EEDI
3.3. Extended Model of Cybercrime Investigation (2004) [10]
Figure 10: EMCI
3.4. A Hierarchical, Objective-Based Framework for the Digital Investigations
Process (2004) [12]
Figure 11: HOBF
Preparation
Incident Response
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Presentation of Findings
Incident Closure
Awareness
Authorization
Planning
Notification
Search for and
identify evidence
Collection of
evidence
Transport of
evidence
Storage of
evidence
Examination of
evidence
Hypothesis
Presentation of
hypothesis
Proof/Defence of
hypothesis
Dissemination of
Information
Identification
Preservation
Collection
Examination
Analysis
Presentation
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
25
3.5. Framework for a Digital Forensic Investigation(2006) [13]
Figure 12: FDFI
3.6. Common Process Model for Incident and Computer Forensics (2007) [14]
Figure 13: CPMICF
3.7. Dual Data Analysis Process (2007) [15]
Figure 14: DDAP
3.8. Network Forensic Generic Process Model (2010) [16]
Access
Acquire
Analyse
Report
Pre-Analysis Phase
Analysis Phase
Post-Analysis Phase
Preparation
Investigation
Presentation
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
26
Figure 15: NFGP
4. IDENTIFYING COMMON PHASES
In order to identify the common phases shared by all of the presented models, we started by
assigning the investigation models with unique id and sorted them in chronological order. The
result is displayed in Table 1, below.
Table 1: Investigation processes/models
ID Year Name
M01 1995 Computer Forensic Investigative Process
M02 2001 DFRWS Investigative Model
M03 2001 Scientific Crime Scene Investigation Model
M04 2002 Abstract Digital Forensic Model
M05 2003 Integrated Digital Investigation Process
M06 2003 End to End Digital Investigation
M07 2004 Enhance Digital Investigation Process
M08 2004 Extended Model of Cybercrime Investigation
M09 2004 A Hierarchical, Objective-Based Framework for the Digital
Investigation
M10 2006 Computer Forensic Field Triage Process Model
M11 2006 Framework for a Digital Forensic Investigation
M12 2007 Dual Data Analysis Process
M13 2007 Common Process Model for Incident and Computer Forensics
M14 2009 Digital Forensic Model based on Malaysian Investigation Process
(DFMMIP)
Preparation
Detection
Collection
Preservation
Examination
Analysis
Investigation
Presentation
Incident
Response
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
27
M15 2010 Network Forensic Generic Process Model
Once the investigation processes were identified, the next step is to extract all of the phases
within each of the investigation processes. Extracted phases were assigned with unique id.
Phases with similar tasks are grouped together. The result is displayed in Table 2, below.
Table 2: List of phases
ID Name of phases Available in
P01 Access M12
P02 Acquisition M01,M12
P03 Admission M01
P04 Analysis M02,M04.M13, M14,M06,M09,M15
P05 Approach Strategy M04
P06 Archive Storage M14
P07 Authorization M08
P08 Awareness M08
P09 Case Specific Analysis M10
P10 Chronology Timeline Analysis M10
P11 Collection M02,M04.M06.M08,M09,M15
P12 Deployment M05,M07
P13 Detection M15
P14 Digital Crime Investigation M05
P15 Dissemination of Information M08
P16 Dynamite M07
P17 Evaluation M01
P18 Examination M02,M04,M06,M08,M15
P19 Hypothesis creation M08
P20 Identification M01,M02,M04, M14,M03,M06
P21 Incident Closure M09
P22 Incident Response M09,M15
P23 Individualization M03
P24 Internet Investigation M10
P25 Investigation M11, M15
P26 Notification M08
P27 Physical Crime Investigation M05
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
28
P28 Planning M10, M14,M08
P29 Post-Analysis M13
P30 Pre-Analysis M13
P31 Preparation M04,M09,M11,M15
P32 Presentation M02,M04,M06,M08,M09,M11,M15
P33 Preservation M02,M04,M06,M15
P34 Proof & Defense M14,M08
P35 Readiness M05,M07
P36 Recognition M03
P37 Reconnaissance M14
P38 Reconstruction M03
P39 Report M12
P40 Returning Evidence M04
P41 Review M05,M07
P42 Search & Identify M08
P43 Traceback M07
P44 Transport & Storage M14,M08
P45 Triage M10
P46 User Usage Profile Investigation M10
Based on the above list of phases (Table 2), it is apparent that a number of those phases do
indeed duplicated or overlapped each other. Taking into account of the tasks performed in each
of the phases, and not just relying on the actual naming, we were able to observe that the phases
can be grouped into 5 generic grouping namely, pre-process, acquisition & preservation,
analysis, presentation and post-process. Table 3 below demonstrate how the phases were
grouped into their respective generic grouping.
Table 3: Generic Phases
Generic Phases Available phases
1 Pre-Process P01, P05, P07, P08, P26, P28, P30, P31, P35, P36,
2 Acquisition &
Preservation
P02, P11, P12, P13, P20, P30, P33, P42, P44
3 Analysis P04. P09, P10, P13, P14, P16, P17, P18, P19, P23, P24, P25, P27,
P37, P38, P42, P43, P45, P46
4 Presentation P03, P29, P32, P34, P39,
5 Post-Process P06, P15, P21, P22, P40, P41,
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
29
Based on our study of other investigation models, not discussed in here, each of their
recommended phases can also be placed in at least one of the above generic phases. Therefore,
we proposed the below generic investigation process, to be known as Generic Computer
Forensic Investigation Model (GCFIM). Figure 1.6 below, illustrate the proposed GCFIM.
Figure 16: Generic Computer Forensic Investigation Model (GCFIM)
Phase 1 of GCFIM is known as Pre-Process. The tasks performed in this phase relates to all of
the works that need to be done prior to the actual investigation and official collection of data.
Among the tasks to be performed are getting the necessary approval from relevant authority,
preparing and setting-up of the tools to be used, etc.
Phase 2 is known as Acquisition & Preservation. Tasks performed under this phase related to
the identifying, acquiring, collecting, transporting, storing and preserving of data. In general,
this phase is where all relevant data are captured, stored and be made available for the next
phase.
Phase 3 is known as Analysis. This is the main and the center of the computer forensic
investigation processes. It has the most number of phases in its group thus reflecting the focus
of most models reviewed are indeed on the analysis phase Various types of analysis are
performed on the acquired data to identify the source of crime and ultimately discovering the
person responsible of the crime.
Phase 4 is known as Presentation. The finding from analysis phase are documented and
presented to the authority. Obviously, this phase is crucial as the case must not only be
presented in a manner well understood by the party presented to, it must also be supported with
adequate and acceptable evidence. The main output of this phase is either to prove or refute the
alleged criminal acts
Phase 5 is known as Post-Process. This phase relates to the proper closing of the investigation
exercise. Digital and physical evidence need to be properly returned to the rightful owner and
kept in safe place, if necessary. Review of the investigative process should be done so that the
lesson can be learnt and used for improvement of the future investigations.
Instead of moving sequentially from one phase to another, the ability to go back to the previous
phases must always be present. We are dealing with the situations that are forever changing in
terms of the crimes scenes (physical and digital), the investigative tools used, the crime tools
Acquisition & Preservation
Analysis
Presentation
Pre-Process
Post-Process
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
30
used and the level of expertise for the investigators. As such, it is much desired to be able to go
back to the previous phases that we have done, not only to correct any weaknesses but also to
acquire new things/information.
We wish to note that phase numbered P22 (in Table 2) was put in Post-Process phase (in Table
3) which is due to our belief, that action or response to any incident should be done after the
incident was properly analyzed and presented to the authority. Nevertheless, should the
investigator found a very risky and high impact incident, prerogative is up to the investigator to
take any proper immediate actions. However, this is a deviation to a normal process and should
be treated on a case to case basis.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the presented computer forensic investigation processes, we are able to extract the
basic common investigation phases that are shared among all models. The differences are in the
content of each phase whereby certain scenario may require certain levels or types of details
steps. Based on the grouping of the overlapping and similar phases, we have proposed, a new
model, Generic Computer Forensic Investigation Model (GCFIM). We hope that GCFIM can
serve as the basic and high level investigation models for any future computer forensic
investigation. It should also serve as a good starting point for the development of new computer
forensic investigation methodology.
REFERENCES
[1] M. G. Noblett, M. M. Pollitt & L. A. Presley, (2000) “Recovering and Examining Computer
Forensic Evidence”, Forensic Science Communications, Vol. 2, No. 4.
[2] M. M. Pollitt, (1995) “Computer Forensics: An Approach to Evidence in Cyberspace”, in
Proceeding of the National Information Systems Security Conference, Baltimore, MD, Vol. II, pp.
487-491.
[3] M. M. Pollitt, (2007) “An Ad Hoc Review of Digital Forensic Models”, in Proceeding of the
Second International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering
(SADFE’07), Washington, USA.
[4] G. Palmer, (2001) "DTR-T001-01 Technical Report. A Road Map for Digital Forensic Research",
Digital Forensics Workshop (DFRWS), Utica, New York.
[5] M. Reith, C. Carr & G. Gunsh, (2002) “An Examination of Digital Forensics Models”,
International Journal of Digital Evidence, Vol. 1, No. 3.
[6] B. Carrier & E. H. Spafford, (2003) “Getting Physical with the Digital Investigation Process”,
International Journal of Digital Evidence, Vol. 2, No. 2
[7] V. Baryamereeba & F. Tushabe, (2004) “The Enhanced Digital Investigation Process Model”, in
Proceeding of Digital Forensic Research Workshop, Baltimore, MD.
[8] M. K. Rogers, J. Goldman, R. Mislan, T. Wedge & S. Debrota, (2006) “Computer Forensic Field
Triage Process Model”, presented at the Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law, pp.
27-40.
[9] P. Sundresan, (2009) “Digital Forensic Model based on Malaysian Investigation Process”,
International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, Vol. 9, No. 8.
[10] S. Ciardhuain, (2004) “An Extended Model of Cybercrime Investigation”, International Journal of
Digital Evidence, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-22.
[11] P. Stephenson, (2003) "A Comprehensive Approach to Digital Incident Investigation.",
Information Security Technical Report, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp 42-52.
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol 3, No 3, June 2011
31
[12] N. L. Beebe & J. G. Clark, (2004) “A Hierarchical, Objective-Based Framework for the Digital
Investigations Process”, in Proceeding of Digital Forensic Research Workshop (DFRWS),
Baltimore, Maryland.
[13] M. Kohn, J. H. P. Eloff, & M. S. Olivier, (2006) “Framework for a Digital Forensic Investigation”,
in Proceedings of the ISSA 2006 from Insight to Foresight Conference, Sandton, South Africa.
[14] F. C. Freiling & B. Schwittay, (2007) “Common Process Model for Incident and Computer
Forensics”, in Proceedings of Conference on IT Incident Management and IT Forensics, Stuttgard,
Germany, pp. 19-40.
[15] D. Bem & E. Huebner, (2007) “Computer Forensic Analysis in a Virtual Environment”,
International Journal of Digital Evidence, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1-13.
[16] E. S. Pilli, R. C. Joshi, & R. Niyogi, (2010) “Network Forensic frameworks: Survey and research
challenges,” Digital Investigation, Vol. 7, pp. 14-27.
Authors
Yunus Yusoff is currently pursuing a PhD in the field of
computer forensics focusing on the trustworthiness of
digital evidence. Prior to joining education field, he has
extensive working experience in banking industry,
managing a department specializing in the information
security and disaster recovery.
