gengenbach-forensic-workflows-2012

physical forensics methodology. 32 Others have compiled models chronologically to
document their increasing complexity. 33 More recently, researchers have synthesized
existing models, isolating common investigative processes in order to create a basic high-
level abstract model, usable for the development of new tools and technologies, but also
helpful for the application of digital forensics processes outside of criminal investigation
and computer security. 34
Digital Preservation and Digital Forensics in Collecting Institutions
It is only in the recent past that practitioners and researchers in digital forensics
and digital preservation have recognized the overlap in their respective fields. Through
the 1980s and 1990s, the rapid pace of technology and the development of new hardware
and software systems had caused some archivists to entirely reconsider how to approach
electronic records, and to question whether traditional conceptions of archival practice
were still valid for this new era. 35 Articles by Adrian Cunningham, Tom Hyry and Rachel
Onuf during this period note the lack of attention to electronic records in collecting
32 Brian Carrier and Eugene H. Spafford, “Getting Physical with the Digital Investigation Process,”
International Journal of Digital Evidence 2 no. 2 (Fall 2003), 1-20,
https://www.cerias.purdue.edu/assets/pdf/bibtex_archive/2003-29.pdf (accessed August 2012).
33 Mark M. Pollitt, “An Ad Hoc Review of Digital Forensic Models,” Proceeding of the Second
International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering (SADFE’07),
Washington, D.C., (2007), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4155349
(accessed August 2012).
34 Yusoff, Ismail, and Hassan, “Common Phases of Computer Forensics Investigation Models,” 29-30.
35 There is a sizable body of scholarship available on this topic; for a classic articulation of the “new
paradigm” model of electronic records management, see David Bearman, “An Indefensible Bastion:
Archives as a Repository in the Digital Age,” in D. Bearman (ed.) Archival Management of Electronic
Records, Archives and Museum Informatics Technical Report 13 (1991), 14-24. An alternative
perspective is provided by Linda J. Henry, “Schellenberg in Cyberspace,” American Archivist 61 no. 2
(Fall 1998): 310-311, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40294090 (accessed July 2012). For summaries of the
differences between the projects, see Philip C. Bantin, “Strategies for Managing Electronic Records: A
New Archival Paradigm? An Affirmation of our Archival Traditions?” Archival Issues 23, no. 1 (1998),
17-34; and Peter B. Hirtle, “Archival Authenticity in a Digital Age,” in Authenticity in a Digital
Environment (Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources, May 2000), 8-23,
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/pub92.pdf (accessed July 2012).
10