Digital Forensics Fundamentals: Exploring Digital Evidence, Mobile Forensics, and Research on Contingency Planning and Open-Source Tools
In today’s connected world, nearly everything we do leaves a digital trace. From sending a quick text message to swiping a credit card or checking into a hotel, pieces of information are constantly being generated, transmitted, and stored. These fragments of data, when properly preserved and analyzed, form what we call digital evidence a cornerstone of modern investigations and legal proceedings.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
What Is Digital Evidence?
Digital evidence refers to data or information stored, transmitted, or received by an electronic device that can be used in an investigation. Much like fingerprints or eyewitness testimony, it can play a decisive role in both criminal and civil cases, but it exists entirely in digital form. Digital evidence can appear in many ways, including:
- Text messages, emails, and call logs
- Digital photos and videos
- GPS and geolocation data
- Web browsing histories and cached files
- Health and fitness tracker data
- Social media interactions and app activity
It resides on a wide range of devices, from cell phones and computers to smartwatches, vehicles, cloud storage platforms, and even fitness wearables. Importantly, devices like phones or laptops act more like containers of evidence than the evidence itself, the real value lies in the data stored within them.
Why Is Digital Evidence Unique?
Unlike physical evidence, which requires direct examination of objects, digital evidence is intangible and fragile. It can be duplicated bit-for-bit, enriched with hidden metadata, and easily altered or destroyed, sometimes unintentionally, by simply booting up a machine. Because of this, investigators treat it with extreme care, following strict procedures to maintain its:
- Integrity: The evidence must remain unchanged from the moment it’s collected.
- Authenticity: It must be demonstrably what it claims to be.
- Reliability: It must be acquired and analyzed using trusted, validated methods.
This fragility makes digital evidence both powerful and risky. The value of a text message, log entry, or GPS record in court depends entirely on whether it can withstand legal scrutiny.
Preserving and Protecting Digital Evidence
Handling digital evidence properly involves three core phases:
- Collection: Evidence must be gathered using forensically sound tools and techniques. Write-blockers, bit-by-bit imaging, and cryptographic hash values ensure the collected data is an exact copy of the original.
- Preservation: Once collected, evidence is stored in secure environments that prevent tampering or unauthorized access. Chain of custody records who, when, and why handled the evidence, and it is meticulously kept to prove integrity.
- Analysis: Experts trained in digital forensics examine the data, interpreting it in a way that is accurate, reproducible, and legally defensible. This often requires specialized knowledge of file systems, operating systems, encryption, and even application-specific artifacts.
The integrity of digital evidence is what makes it admissible and credible. If at any point the data is altered or if protocols are not followed, courts may reject it altogether.
Legal Challenges and Admissibility
Because digital evidence often contains private and sensitive data, its collection is tightly regulated. In most jurisdictions, a warrant is required before investigators can seize and examine a digital device. Failing to follow this requirement often results in courts ruling the evidence inadmissible.
A notable example occurred in 1999 during an investigation into online harassment by Keith Schroeder. While examining his computer, investigators found child pornography. However, because their warrant only covered the harassment case, a second warrant had to be obtained before the newly discovered material could be used as evidence in court. This case illustrates a core principle of digital forensics: evidence is only valuable if it is collected within the boundaries of the law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, digital evidence has become as important as physical fingerprints or DNA samples. It can provide timelines, reveal hidden activities, and corroborate or challenge testimony. Yet its power is matched by its fragility: evidence collected improperly, without authorization, or without regard to chain of custody can unravel an entire case.
For investigators, lawyers, and even ordinary citizens, understanding digital evidence means appreciating both its potential and its pitfalls. When handled with care, through strict adherence to forensic protocols and legal standards, it can deliver the insights that determine justice.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mobile Forensics: Unlocking the Evidence Inside Our Phones
Smartphones have become the most personal and indispensable devices in modern life. They store our conversations, locations, photos, health data, and even act as wallets and digital IDs. Because of this, mobile devices are often treasure troves of potential evidence in both criminal and civil investigations. The discipline of mobile forensics focuses on extracting, preserving, analyzing, and presenting this data in a way that is legally admissible and reliable.
What Mobile Forensics Is?
Mobile forensics is a specialized branch of digital forensics that deals with recovering digital evidence or data from mobile devices (primarily smartphones, tablets, and wearables) under forensically sound conditions. The goal is to identify, preserve, extract, and analyze data without altering its integrity. Mobile evidence can include:
- Call logs and text messages
- Photos, videos, and audio recordings
- Instant messaging app data (WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, etc.)
- GPS and location history
- Browser activity and cached files
- Social media posts and interactions
- Health and fitness tracker information
- Mobile payment records and banking app data
Unlike traditional computers, mobile devices are always connected to cellular networks, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cloud services, creating a much richer (and more complex) stream of evidence.
Why Mobile Forensics Is Unique?
While mobile forensics shares principles with general digital forensics, it faces unique challenges:
- Rapidly changing technology: New operating systems (iOS, Android variants) and app updates constantly alter how data is stored.
- Encryption and security features: PINs, biometrics, full-disk encryption, and secure enclaves can make access extremely difficult.
- Cloud integration: Many mobile apps sync data to the cloud, meaning that a full investigation may require lawful access to both the device and associated accounts.
- Proprietary formats: Each manufacturer may use unique data structures, storage methods, and logs that require specialized tools.
Because of these factors, mobile forensic investigators must stay current with tools, techniques, and legal requirements.
The Mobile Forensics Process
Mobile forensics follows the same broad stages as other digital forensics but adapted for the mobile environment:
1. Seizure and Preservation: Devices must be isolated to prevent remote wiping or tampering. Investigators often place phones in Faraday bags (which block signals) and document chain of custody.
2. Acquisition: This is the process of copying data from the device. Techniques include:
- Logical acquisition: Extracting files and data through the device’s operating system (e.g., call logs, contacts, media).
- File system acquisition: Accessing the full file system, including deleted files.
- Physical acquisition: Creating a bit-for-bit copy of the device’s memory (most complete but hardest to achieve, especially with encryption).
3. Examination and Analysis: Forensic tools parse the raw data into human-readable formats. Analysts reconstruct timelines, recover deleted items, and correlate evidence (e.g., matching GPS data to call logs).
4. Reporting and Presentation: Findings must be documented in a clear, defensible report. In court, experts must be able to explain not only what data was found, but how it was obtained and why it is trustworthy.
Protecting Integrity and Admissibility
Because mobile data is so easy to manipulate or destroy, strict safeguards must be followed:
- Use of validated forensic tools (e.g., Cellebrite UFED, Oxygen Forensic Detective, Magnet AXIOM).
- Documentation of every step in the process.
- Verification of extracted data with cryptographic hashes.
- Secure storage of both original devices and forensic copies.
Courts require that evidence be authentic, relevant, and reliable. If data is collected without proper authorization (such as without a warrant) it may be ruled inadmissible, no matter how incriminating it is.
Real-World Examples of Mobile Forensics
- Criminal Investigations: A suspect’s phone may reveal incriminating texts, deleted images, or geolocation data placing them at the crime scene.
- Civil Litigation: In divorce proceedings, mobile forensics may uncover hidden financial apps or secret communications relevant to the case.
- Accident Reconstruction: Data from navigation apps and sensors can reveal whether a driver was texting or speeding before a crash.
- Corporate Investigations: Companies use mobile forensics to detect data leaks, IP theft, or policy violations.
One widely cited case involved the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack, where law enforcement sought access to the shooter’s iPhone. The case sparked international debate over privacy, encryption, and government access to digital evidence, highlighting just how central mobile forensics has become.
Conclusion
Mobile forensics sits at the intersection of technology, law, and privacy. As smartphones continue to evolve into digital extensions of ourselves, the evidence they contain grows more valuable, and more sensitive. Proper handling ensures that data is preserved in a way that protects both its evidentiary value and individual rights. Handled correctly, mobile evidence can unlock the truth. Mishandled, it can collapse a case. The difference lies in expertise, protocols, and respect for the law.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
In today’s connected world, nearly everything we do leaves a digital trace. From sending a quick text message to swiping a credit card or checking into a hotel, pieces of information are constantly being generated, transmitted, and stored. These fragments of data, when properly preserved and analyzed, form what we call digital evidence a cornerstone of modern investigations and legal proceedings.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________What Is Digital Evidence?
Digital evidence refers to data or information stored, transmitted, or received by an electronic device that can be used in an investigation. Much like fingerprints or eyewitness testimony, it can play a decisive role in both criminal and civil cases, but it exists entirely in digital form. Digital evidence can appear in many ways, including:
- Text messages, emails, and call logs
- Digital photos and videos
- GPS and geolocation data
- Web browsing histories and cached files
- Health and fitness tracker data
- Social media interactions and app activity
It resides on a wide range of devices, from cell phones and computers to smartwatches, vehicles, cloud storage platforms, and even fitness wearables. Importantly, devices like phones or laptops act more like containers of evidence than the evidence itself, the real value lies in the data stored within them.
Why Is Digital Evidence Unique?
Unlike physical evidence, which requires direct examination of objects, digital evidence is intangible and fragile. It can be duplicated bit-for-bit, enriched with hidden metadata, and easily altered or destroyed, sometimes unintentionally, by simply booting up a machine. Because of this, investigators treat it with extreme care, following strict procedures to maintain its:
- Integrity: The evidence must remain unchanged from the moment it’s collected.
- Authenticity: It must be demonstrably what it claims to be.
- Reliability: It must be acquired and analyzed using trusted, validated methods.
This fragility makes digital evidence both powerful and risky. The value of a text message, log entry, or GPS record in court depends entirely on whether it can withstand legal scrutiny.
Preserving and Protecting Digital Evidence
Handling digital evidence properly involves three core phases:
- Collection: Evidence must be gathered using forensically sound tools and techniques. Write-blockers, bit-by-bit imaging, and cryptographic hash values ensure the collected data is an exact copy of the original.
- Preservation: Once collected, evidence is stored in secure environments that prevent tampering or unauthorized access. Chain of custody records who, when, and why handled the evidence, and it is meticulously kept to prove integrity.
- Analysis: Experts trained in digital forensics examine the data, interpreting it in a way that is accurate, reproducible, and legally defensible. This often requires specialized knowledge of file systems, operating systems, encryption, and even application-specific artifacts.
The integrity of digital evidence is what makes it admissible and credible. If at any point the data is altered or if protocols are not followed, courts may reject it altogether.
Legal Challenges and Admissibility
Because digital evidence often contains private and sensitive data, its collection is tightly regulated. In most jurisdictions, a warrant is required before investigators can seize and examine a digital device. Failing to follow this requirement often results in courts ruling the evidence inadmissible.
A notable example occurred in 1999 during an investigation into online harassment by Keith Schroeder. While examining his computer, investigators found child pornography. However, because their warrant only covered the harassment case, a second warrant had to be obtained before the newly discovered material could be used as evidence in court. This case illustrates a core principle of digital forensics: evidence is only valuable if it is collected within the boundaries of the law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, digital evidence has become as important as physical fingerprints or DNA samples. It can provide timelines, reveal hidden activities, and corroborate or challenge testimony. Yet its power is matched by its fragility: evidence collected improperly, without authorization, or without regard to chain of custody can unravel an entire case.
For investigators, lawyers, and even ordinary citizens, understanding digital evidence means appreciating both its potential and its pitfalls. When handled with care, through strict adherence to forensic protocols and legal standards, it can deliver the insights that determine justice.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________Mobile Forensics: Unlocking the Evidence Inside Our Phones
Smartphones have become the most personal and indispensable devices in modern life. They store our conversations, locations, photos, health data, and even act as wallets and digital IDs. Because of this, mobile devices are often treasure troves of potential evidence in both criminal and civil investigations. The discipline of mobile forensics focuses on extracting, preserving, analyzing, and presenting this data in a way that is legally admissible and reliable.
What Mobile Forensics Is?
Mobile forensics is a specialized branch of digital forensics that deals with recovering digital evidence or data from mobile devices (primarily smartphones, tablets, and wearables) under forensically sound conditions. The goal is to identify, preserve, extract, and analyze data without altering its integrity. Mobile evidence can include:
- Call logs and text messages
- Photos, videos, and audio recordings
- Instant messaging app data (WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, etc.)
- GPS and location history
- Browser activity and cached files
- Social media posts and interactions
- Health and fitness tracker information
- Mobile payment records and banking app data
Unlike traditional computers, mobile devices are always connected to cellular networks, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cloud services, creating a much richer (and more complex) stream of evidence.
Why Mobile Forensics Is Unique?
While mobile forensics shares principles with general digital forensics, it faces unique challenges:
- Rapidly changing technology: New operating systems (iOS, Android variants) and app updates constantly alter how data is stored.
- Encryption and security features: PINs, biometrics, full-disk encryption, and secure enclaves can make access extremely difficult.
- Cloud integration: Many mobile apps sync data to the cloud, meaning that a full investigation may require lawful access to both the device and associated accounts.
- Proprietary formats: Each manufacturer may use unique data structures, storage methods, and logs that require specialized tools.
Because of these factors, mobile forensic investigators must stay current with tools, techniques, and legal requirements.
The Mobile Forensics Process
Mobile forensics follows the same broad stages as other digital forensics but adapted for the mobile environment:
1. Seizure and Preservation: Devices must be isolated to prevent remote wiping or tampering. Investigators often place phones in Faraday bags (which block signals) and document chain of custody.
2. Acquisition: This is the process of copying data from the device. Techniques include:
- Logical acquisition: Extracting files and data through the device’s operating system (e.g., call logs, contacts, media).
- File system acquisition: Accessing the full file system, including deleted files.
- Physical acquisition: Creating a bit-for-bit copy of the device’s memory (most complete but hardest to achieve, especially with encryption).
3. Examination and Analysis: Forensic tools parse the raw data into human-readable formats. Analysts reconstruct timelines, recover deleted items, and correlate evidence (e.g., matching GPS data to call logs).
4. Reporting and Presentation: Findings must be documented in a clear, defensible report. In court, experts must be able to explain not only what data was found, but how it was obtained and why it is trustworthy.
Protecting Integrity and Admissibility
Because mobile data is so easy to manipulate or destroy, strict safeguards must be followed:
- Use of validated forensic tools (e.g., Cellebrite UFED, Oxygen Forensic Detective, Magnet AXIOM).
- Documentation of every step in the process.
- Verification of extracted data with cryptographic hashes.
- Secure storage of both original devices and forensic copies.
Courts require that evidence be authentic, relevant, and reliable. If data is collected without proper authorization (such as without a warrant) it may be ruled inadmissible, no matter how incriminating it is.
Real-World Examples of Mobile Forensics
- Criminal Investigations: A suspect’s phone may reveal incriminating texts, deleted images, or geolocation data placing them at the crime scene.
- Civil Litigation: In divorce proceedings, mobile forensics may uncover hidden financial apps or secret communications relevant to the case.
- Accident Reconstruction: Data from navigation apps and sensors can reveal whether a driver was texting or speeding before a crash.
- Corporate Investigations: Companies use mobile forensics to detect data leaks, IP theft, or policy violations.
One widely cited case involved the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack, where law enforcement sought access to the shooter’s iPhone. The case sparked international debate over privacy, encryption, and government access to digital evidence, highlighting just how central mobile forensics has become.
Conclusion
Mobile forensics sits at the intersection of technology, law, and privacy. As smartphones continue to evolve into digital extensions of ourselves, the evidence they contain grows more valuable, and more sensitive. Proper handling ensures that data is preserved in a way that protects both its evidentiary value and individual rights. Handled correctly, mobile evidence can unlock the truth. Mishandled, it can collapse a case. The difference lies in expertise, protocols, and respect for the law.
Paper Reviews
Information System Contingency Planning Guidance
By: Larry G. Wlosinski
The paper on Information System Contingency Planning (ISCP) published in the ISACA Journal is a thorough and well-structured discussion of the need for contingency planning in modern organizations. The author does a commendable job of covering the essentials, highlighting not just the importance of ISCP but also the metrics, risks, and business impacts that justify its implementation. I found the discussion of disruption statistics and the breakdown of threats into categories (natural, internal, external, cyber, etc.) particularly effective in grounding the paper with both context and urgency. The paper reflects solid research, referencing industry reports and NIST guidance, which reinforces its credibility and practical applicability.
That said, while the breadth of topics is impressive, the article sometimes feels more descriptive than analytical. For example, when discussing backup strategies or disaster recovery site types, the paper explains the options well but could have benefited from deeper case studies or real-world examples where organizations succeeded or failed in implementing these strategies. Adding concrete stories or lessons learned from high-profile incidents would have enhanced its impact and given readers a stronger sense of how ISCP principles work in practice.
Another area where the paper could be expanded is in exploring the human factor beyond training and roles. While employee responsibilities and training are discussed, the argument could be strengthened by including behavioral aspects, such as how organizational culture, decision-making under stress, or leadership commitment directly influence the success of contingency planning. Additionally, the treatment of costs and budgets, while necessary, could have been balanced with strategies for smaller organizations that lack enterprise-level resources. This would have broadened the paper’s relevance to a wider audience.
Overall, I agree with the article’s emphasis on ISCP as a critical part of information security and resilience. It supports my existing belief that contingency planning is too often overlooked until a crisis occurs. While the article didn’t drastically change my position, it reinforced the necessity of proactive planning and testing, and it highlighted several overlooked considerations (such as vendor agreements and recovery site readiness) that I found useful. A follow-up article could build on this foundation by examining real-world ISCP failures and successes, showcasing best practices across industries, and offering a roadmap for adapting ISCP in cloud-native and hybrid environments.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Open-Source Tools for Digital Forensic Investigation: Capability, Reliability, Transparency and Legal Requirements
By: Isa Ismail, and Khairul Akram Zainol Ariffin
The paper “Open-Source Tools for Digital Forensic Investigation: Capability, Reliability, Transparency and Legal Requirements” provides a highly relevant and timely discussion on the role of open-source digital forensic (DF) tools in modern investigations. The authors explore not only the technical aspects of these tools but also their legal admissibility, which is often the most contested issue in digital forensics. I believe the paper succeeds in laying a strong foundation by structuring its analysis around four main factors: capability, reliability, transparency, and lack of standards. This conceptual framework is practical and can help both researchers and practitioners think more systematically about how open-source tools can be evaluated and improved.
From a research quality perspective, the paper demonstrates sufficient rigor. The systematic literature review (SLR) approach, covering studies from 2011 to 2022, provides a solid evidence base and avoids cherry-picking. The inclusion of both technical comparisons (accuracy, efficiency, scalability) and legal considerations (authenticity, admissibility, evidence standards) make the discussion well-rounded. That said, I felt the argument could have been enriched with more real-world case studies where open-source tools were either successfully admitted in court or rejected. While Charpentier’s example of Field Search and TUX4N6 is mentioned, additional global examples would have helped illustrate how different jurisdictions view the issue.
Another element that could have been expanded is the practical challenges of adoption. While the paper rightly emphasizes cost savings as a driver for open-source adoption, it does not fully address organizational resistance, training gaps, or the lack of vendor accountability. A follow-up article could explore hybrid strategies; how law enforcement or corporate forensic teams might integrate open-source and proprietary tools together for cost-effectiveness without sacrificing credibility. It could also examine how international bodies like NIST or ISO might develop validation standards for open-source tools, a step that would dramatically increase their legal acceptance.
Overall, I found myself agreeing with the article’s position. It reinforced my view that open-source DF tools are viable alternatives to proprietary solutions, provided they are validated and used with care. It did not necessarily change my opinion, but it did deepen my appreciation for the legal and procedural hurdles that remain. The emphasis on transparency as a strength of open source (because source code can be scrutinized) was particularly compelling, as it flips a common criticism into a legal advantage. A future piece building on this work could provide a roadmap for achieving digital forensic readiness with open-source tools, ensuring they meet evidentiary standards worldwide.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
References:
- Wlosinski, L. G. (2021). Information system contingency planning guidance. ISACA Journal, 3(5), 50–56.
- Ismail, I., & Zainol Ariffin, K. A. (2024). Open source tools for digital forensic investigation: Capability, reliability, transparency and legal requirements. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 18(9), 2692–2716. https://doi.org/10.3837/tiis.2024.09.012
- Phillips, A., Godfrey, R., Steuart, C., & Brown, C. (2013). E-Discovery: an introduction to digital evidence. Cengage Learning.
- Broucek, C. E. (2023). EDiscovery for the legal professional. Aspen Publishing.
- Sammons, J. (2014). The basics of digital Forensics: The Primer for Getting Started in Digital Forensics. Syngress Press.
Information System Contingency Planning Guidance
By: Larry G. Wlosinski
The paper on Information System Contingency Planning (ISCP) published in the ISACA Journal is a thorough and well-structured discussion of the need for contingency planning in modern organizations. The author does a commendable job of covering the essentials, highlighting not just the importance of ISCP but also the metrics, risks, and business impacts that justify its implementation. I found the discussion of disruption statistics and the breakdown of threats into categories (natural, internal, external, cyber, etc.) particularly effective in grounding the paper with both context and urgency. The paper reflects solid research, referencing industry reports and NIST guidance, which reinforces its credibility and practical applicability.
That said, while the breadth of topics is impressive, the article sometimes feels more descriptive than analytical. For example, when discussing backup strategies or disaster recovery site types, the paper explains the options well but could have benefited from deeper case studies or real-world examples where organizations succeeded or failed in implementing these strategies. Adding concrete stories or lessons learned from high-profile incidents would have enhanced its impact and given readers a stronger sense of how ISCP principles work in practice.
Another area where the paper could be expanded is in exploring the human factor beyond training and roles. While employee responsibilities and training are discussed, the argument could be strengthened by including behavioral aspects, such as how organizational culture, decision-making under stress, or leadership commitment directly influence the success of contingency planning. Additionally, the treatment of costs and budgets, while necessary, could have been balanced with strategies for smaller organizations that lack enterprise-level resources. This would have broadened the paper’s relevance to a wider audience.
Overall, I agree with the article’s emphasis on ISCP as a critical part of information security and resilience. It supports my existing belief that contingency planning is too often overlooked until a crisis occurs. While the article didn’t drastically change my position, it reinforced the necessity of proactive planning and testing, and it highlighted several overlooked considerations (such as vendor agreements and recovery site readiness) that I found useful. A follow-up article could build on this foundation by examining real-world ISCP failures and successes, showcasing best practices across industries, and offering a roadmap for adapting ISCP in cloud-native and hybrid environments.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________Open-Source Tools for Digital Forensic Investigation: Capability, Reliability, Transparency and Legal Requirements
By: Isa Ismail, and Khairul Akram Zainol Ariffin
The paper “Open-Source Tools for Digital Forensic Investigation: Capability, Reliability, Transparency and Legal Requirements” provides a highly relevant and timely discussion on the role of open-source digital forensic (DF) tools in modern investigations. The authors explore not only the technical aspects of these tools but also their legal admissibility, which is often the most contested issue in digital forensics. I believe the paper succeeds in laying a strong foundation by structuring its analysis around four main factors: capability, reliability, transparency, and lack of standards. This conceptual framework is practical and can help both researchers and practitioners think more systematically about how open-source tools can be evaluated and improved.
From a research quality perspective, the paper demonstrates sufficient rigor. The systematic literature review (SLR) approach, covering studies from 2011 to 2022, provides a solid evidence base and avoids cherry-picking. The inclusion of both technical comparisons (accuracy, efficiency, scalability) and legal considerations (authenticity, admissibility, evidence standards) make the discussion well-rounded. That said, I felt the argument could have been enriched with more real-world case studies where open-source tools were either successfully admitted in court or rejected. While Charpentier’s example of Field Search and TUX4N6 is mentioned, additional global examples would have helped illustrate how different jurisdictions view the issue.
Another element that could have been expanded is the practical challenges of adoption. While the paper rightly emphasizes cost savings as a driver for open-source adoption, it does not fully address organizational resistance, training gaps, or the lack of vendor accountability. A follow-up article could explore hybrid strategies; how law enforcement or corporate forensic teams might integrate open-source and proprietary tools together for cost-effectiveness without sacrificing credibility. It could also examine how international bodies like NIST or ISO might develop validation standards for open-source tools, a step that would dramatically increase their legal acceptance.
Overall, I found myself agreeing with the article’s position. It reinforced my view that open-source DF tools are viable alternatives to proprietary solutions, provided they are validated and used with care. It did not necessarily change my opinion, but it did deepen my appreciation for the legal and procedural hurdles that remain. The emphasis on transparency as a strength of open source (because source code can be scrutinized) was particularly compelling, as it flips a common criticism into a legal advantage. A future piece building on this work could provide a roadmap for achieving digital forensic readiness with open-source tools, ensuring they meet evidentiary standards worldwide.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
References:
- Wlosinski, L. G. (2021). Information system contingency planning guidance. ISACA Journal, 3(5), 50–56.
- Ismail, I., & Zainol Ariffin, K. A. (2024). Open source tools for digital forensic investigation: Capability, reliability, transparency and legal requirements. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 18(9), 2692–2716. https://doi.org/10.3837/tiis.2024.09.012
- Phillips, A., Godfrey, R., Steuart, C., & Brown, C. (2013). E-Discovery: an introduction to digital evidence. Cengage Learning.
- Broucek, C. E. (2023). EDiscovery for the legal professional. Aspen Publishing.
- Sammons, J. (2014). The basics of digital Forensics: The Primer for Getting Started in Digital Forensics. Syngress Press.
