Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
IoT-Enabled Smart Living Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2018 | Supplement | Buchkapitel

15. Testing the Comprehensive Digital Forensic Investigation Process Model (the CDFIPM)

verfasst von : Reza Montasari

Erschienen in: Technology for Smart Futures

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The Comprehensive Digital Forensic Investigation Process Model (the CDFIPM), presented in Montasari (IJESDF 8(4)285–301, 2016), provides guidelines for carrying out digital investigations in the UK jurisdiction in a forensically sound manner. The CDFIPM is comprehensive in that it covers the entire digital forensic investigative process; it is generic such that it can be applied in the three fields of law enforcement, incident response and commerce. The model is also formal in that it synthesises, harmonises and extends the existing digital forensic investigation process models. The CDFIPM also needs to be subjected to an evaluation process in order to determine ‘whether the model has been built right’ and ‘whether the right model has been built’. To this end, the CDFIPM is applied to a case study in this paper to determine whether the model meets the two components of ‘utility’ and ‘usability’.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Designing Health Technology: The Ethical Dimension
Nächstes Kapitel Systematic Literature Review of Using Knowledge Management Systems and Processes in Green ICT and ICT for Greening
Literatur
1.
ACPO. (2012). ACPO good practice guide for digital evidence. U.K. Association of Chief Police Officers.
2.
Adams, L., & Courtney, J. (2004). Achieving relevance in IS research via the DAGS framework. 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Big Island, HI, USA.
3.
Adams, R. (2012). The Advanced Data Acquisition Model (ADAM): A process model for digital forensic practice. PhD thesis. Murdoch University.
4.
Adams, R., Hobbs, V., & Mann, G. (2014). The advanced data acquisition model (ADAM): A process model for digital forensic practice. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 8(4), 25–48.
5.
Agarwal, A., Gupta, M., Gupta, S., & Gupta, C. (2011). Systematic digital forensic investigation model. International Journal of Computer Science and Security, 5(1), 118–130.
6.
Archer, L. (1984). Systematic method for designers. London: Wiley.
7.
Armstrong, C., & Armstrong, H. (2010). Modeling forensic evidence systems using design science. IFIP WG International Working Conference (pp. 282–300).
8.
Balci, O. (2004). Quality assessment, verification, and validation of modeling and simulation applications. Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 1–8). Washington DC.
9.
Beebe, N., & Clark, J. (2005). A hierarchical, objectives-based framework for the digital investigations process. Digital Investigation, 2(2), 147–167.CrossRef
10.
Carlton, H., & Worthley, R. (2009). An evaluation of agreement and conflict among computer forensic experts. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Washington DC.
11.
Carrier, B., & Spafford, E. (2003). Getting physical with the digital investigation process. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 2(2), 1–20.
12.
Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers and the internet (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier Academic Press.
13.
Ciardhuáin, O. (2004). An extended model of cybercrime investigations. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 3(1), 1–22.
14.
Cohen, F. (2011). Putting the science in digital forensics. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 6(1), 7–14.
15.
Cohen, F. (2012). Update on the state of the science of digital evidence examination. Proceedings of the Conference on Digital Forensics, Security, and Law (pp. 7–18). Richmond, USA.
16.
Eekels, J., & Roozenburg, N. (1991). A methodological comparison of the structures of scientific research and engineering design: Their similarities and differences. Design Studies, 12(4), 197–203.CrossRef
17.
Freiling, C., & Schwittay, B. (2007). A common process model for incident response and computer forensics. 3rd International Conference on IT-Incident Management & IT-Forensics (pp. 19–40). Stuttgart, Germany.
18.
Garfinkel, S., Farrell, P., Roussev, V., & Dinolt, G. (2009). Bringing science to digital forensics with standardized forensic corpora. Digital Investigation, 6, 2–11.CrossRef
19.
Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design research in information systems. New York: Springer.CrossRef
20.
Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.CrossRef
21.
International Organisation for Standardization. (2012). ISO/IEC 27037:2012. Information technology–Security techniques–Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
22.
Kessler, C. (2010). Judges’ awareness, understanding, and application of digital evidence. PhD thesis, Nova Southeastern University.
23.
Kohn, M., Eloff, M., & Eloff, J. (2013). Integrated digital forensic process model. Computers & Security, 38, 103–115.CrossRef
24.
Kuechler, B., & Vaishnavi, V. (2008). On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 489–504.CrossRef
25.
Leigland, L., & Krings, A. (2004). A formalization of digital forensics. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 3(2), 1–32.
26.
March, S., & Smith, G. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.CrossRef
27.
March, S., & Storey, V. (2008). Design science in the information systems discipline: An introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 725–730.CrossRef
28.
Mason, S. (2007). Electronic evidence: Disclosure, discovery and admissibility. London: LexisNexis Butterworths.
29.
Montasari, R., & Peltola, P. (2015). Computer forensic analysis of private browsing modes. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on global security, safety and sustainability: Tomorrow's challenges of cyber security (pp. 96–109). London: Springer International Publishing.CrossRef
30.
Montasari, R. (2016). An Ad Hoc detailed review of digital forensic investigation process models. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics, 8(3), 203–223.CrossRef
31.
Montasari, R. (2016). A comprehensive digital forensic investigation process model. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics (IJESDF), 8(4), 285–301.CrossRef
32.
Nunamaker, J., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. (1990). Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 89–106.CrossRef
33.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C., Rossi, M., Hui, W., Virtanen, V. & Bragge, J. (2006). The design science research process: A model for producing and presenting information systems research. 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (pp. 83–106). USA.
34.
Pollitt, M. (2009). The good, the bad, the unaddressed. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, 2(4), 172–174.CrossRef
35.
Reith, M., Carr, C., & Gunsch, G. (2002). An examination of digital forensic models. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 1(3), 1–12.
36.
Rogers, M., Goldman, J., Mislan, R., Wedge, T. & Debrota, S. (2006). Computer forensics field triage process model. Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law (pp. 27–40). Las Vegas, USA.
37.
Rossi, M., & Sein, M. (2003). Design research workshop: A proactive research approach. 26th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (pp. 9–12). Haikko, Finland.
38.
Rowlingson, R. (2004). A ten step process for forensic readiness. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 2(3), 1–28.
39.
Selamat, S., Yusof, R., & Sahib, S. (2008). Mapping process of digital forensic investigation framework. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 8(10), 163–169.
40.
Sherman, S. (2006). A digital forensic practitioner’s guide to giving evidence in a court of law. Proceedings of the 4th Australian Digital Forensics Conference (pp. 1–7). Perth Western, Australia.
41.
Smith, R., Grabosky, P., & Urbas, G. (2011). Cyber criminals on trial. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Stanfield, A. (2009). Computer forensics, electronic discovery and electronic evidence. Chatswood: LexisNexis Butterworths.
43.
Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P., Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1990). Modeling design processes. AI Magazine, 11(4), 37–48.
44.
45.
46.
Valjarevic, A., & Venter, H. (2015). A comprehensive and harmonized digital forensic investigation process model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(6), 1467–1483.CrossRef
47.
Walls, J., Widmeyer, G., & El Sawy, O. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.CrossRef
48.
Watts, S., Shankaranarayanan, G., & Even, A. (2009). Data quality assessment in context: A cognitive perspective. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 202–211.CrossRef
49.
Wieringa, R. (2009). Design science as nested problem solving. 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (pp. 8–19). Philadelphia, USA.
50.
International Organisation for Standardization. (2015). ISO/IEC 27043:2015. Information technology–Security techniques–Incident investigation principles and processes. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Metadaten
Titel
Testing the Comprehensive Digital Forensic Investigation Process Model (the CDFIPM)
verfasst von
Reza Montasari
Copyright-Jahr
2018
Buch
Technology for Smart Futures

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60136-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-60137-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60137-3_15