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.

Stage 1<br />

Understand the discipline <strong>of</strong><br />

Electronic Evidence (EE)<br />

Stage 2<br />

Specific fundamental functions in<br />

EE investigative processes through<br />

Function Mapping<br />

Stage 3<br />

Specific test requirements <strong>for</strong> each<br />

identified functions<br />

Stage 4<br />

Develop test scenarios to test the<br />

identified functions<br />

Stage 5<br />

Execute the tests on the test<br />

subjects<br />

Figure 3.6. Process <strong>of</strong> Function Oriented Paradigm from Guo & Slay (2010)<br />

The ef<strong>for</strong>t made by Guo & Slay (2010) is another notable research in digital <strong>for</strong>ensic<br />

tools validation. The methodology adopted in this research is a systematic and<br />

scientifically sound approach to validate digital <strong>for</strong>ensic tools. Compared to the<br />

traditional testing methods, the approach used in this research is extensible and tool<br />

neutrailised. As more requirements are found, they can be added to the specifications<br />

without compromising the entire framework. The approach is functionality oriented<br />

and it does not matter to what tool it is applied.<br />

Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, this methodology has not been applied on any tools yet to<br />

evaluate its weaknesses or shortcomings. The development <strong>of</strong> the reference set in the<br />

research by Guo & Slay (2010) has a potential problem. The problem is that the<br />

authors have specified extensible function requirements and they assumed that the<br />

corresponding reference set (test scenarios) were also extensible. Each function<br />

requirement may have serveal variables that lead to different variations. But Guo &<br />

Slay (2010) missed out the possible combination <strong>of</strong> those variables that maybe<br />

54

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!