30.06.2013 Views

Evaluating A Selection of Tools for Extraction of Forensic Data: Disk ...

Evaluating A Selection of Tools for Extraction of Forensic Data: Disk ...

Evaluating A Selection of Tools for Extraction of Forensic Data: Disk ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

oth original and duplicate copy <strong>of</strong> mirror images. Both hash values must be the same<br />

to verify that both images are identical. A court case United States v. Liebert (3rd Cir.<br />

1975) argued the exhibit presented as evidence against him should not be admissible<br />

because <strong>of</strong> the duplicability and modifiability nature <strong>of</strong> digital evidence. The argument<br />

presented in this case showed that the evidence obtained from an investigation must be<br />

properly authenticated be<strong>for</strong>e it can be admissible in court.<br />

In conclusion, admissibility <strong>of</strong> digital <strong>for</strong>ensic evidence must meet three<br />

requirements: first the evidence must be relevant to the case investigated, second it<br />

must be obtained with scientific methods, and third it must be confirmed by proper<br />

validation. The criterion is reliability when the evidence is regarded as admissible<br />

(Ryan & Shpantzer, 2002). When developing and using digital <strong>for</strong>ensic tools that<br />

might be producing digital evidence that are introduced to court, these requirements<br />

must be considered.<br />

2.2.3 Open Source and Proprietary Digital <strong>Forensic</strong> <strong>Tools</strong><br />

The fundamental principles <strong>of</strong> Daubert guidelines and other requirements <strong>of</strong> admitting<br />

evidence in the court are covered in section 2.2.2. Digital <strong>for</strong>ensic s<strong>of</strong>tware is a tool<br />

that assists digital investigators to acquire or locate potential digital evidence. The<br />

validity <strong>of</strong> digital <strong>for</strong>ensic s<strong>of</strong>tware must be fully assessed be<strong>for</strong>e the evidence is<br />

treated as admissible. Carrier (2002) and Dan et al. (2007) raised an argument <strong>of</strong><br />

whether digital <strong>for</strong>ensics using Open source tools would be better. Goel (1985)<br />

defined that s<strong>of</strong>tware reliability is satisfied if s<strong>of</strong>tware faults do not cause a failure<br />

during a specified exposure period in a specified environment. Understandably,<br />

unreliable digital <strong>for</strong>ensic s<strong>of</strong>tware will lead to untrustworthy results and may<br />

jeopardise the whole <strong>for</strong>ensics investigation.<br />

It is important to distinguish between Open source and Proprietary S<strong>of</strong>tware.<br />

The central defining point <strong>of</strong> Open source and Proprietary s<strong>of</strong>tware is the availability<br />

<strong>of</strong> the source code. Open source s<strong>of</strong>tware allows open access to the source code<br />

whereas Proprietary s<strong>of</strong>tware makes their source code unavailable to the public. Some<br />

prominent examples <strong>of</strong> Open source s<strong>of</strong>tware (OSS) include Ubuntu, Apache web<br />

server, Firefox web browser, and MySQL database. The counterpart proprietary<br />

22

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!