Advertisement

Qualitative Analysis for Platform Independent Forensics Process Model (PIFPM) for Smartphones

  • F. Chevonne Thomas Dancer
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 887)

Abstract

This paper details how forensic examiners determine the mobile device process and if the Platform Independent Forensics Process Model for Smartphones (PIFPM) helps them in achieving the goal of examining a smartphone. The researcher conducted interviews, presented the PIFPM process to the examiners, and supplied surveys that the examiners were exposed to. Using convenience sampling, the frequency and percent distribution of each examiner is given as well as strengths and weaknesses of PIFPM as it relates to the examiner. Based on the hypotheses given by the researcher, the results were either refuted or supported through sampling from the forensic examiners. The goal of this paper is to uncover interesting details that the researcher overlooked when examining a smartphone.

Keywords

Platform Independent Forensics Process Model (PIFPM) Digital forensics Interviews Mobile device forensics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. David A. Dampier, Professor and Interim Chair of Information Systems and Cyber Security at the University of Texas at San Antonio, Texas, the forensic examiners at the National Center for Forensics at Mississippi State University, Mississippi and the forensic examiners at the Attorney General’s Office in Jackson, Mississippi.

References

  1. 1.
    Chevonne Thomas Dancer, F., Dampier, D.A., Jackson, J.M., Meghanathan, N.V.: A theoretical process model for smartphones. In: Proceedings of 2012 Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Soft Computing and Applications, Chennai, India, 13–15 July 2012Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chevonne Thomas Dancer, F.: Analyzing and comparing android HTC Aria, Apple iPhone 3G, and Windows Mobile HTC TouchPro 6850. In: The 2016 IEEE International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, USA, 15–17 December 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chevonne Thomas Dancer, F.: Manual analysis phase for (PIFPM): Platform Independent Forensics Process Model for smartphones. Int. J. Cyber Secur. Digit. Forensics 6(3), 101–108 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dancer, F.C.T., Skelton, G.W.: To change or not to change: that is the question. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), Waltham, MA, pp. 212–216 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chevonne Thomas Dancer, F., Dampier, D.A.: Refining the digital device hierarchy. J. Acad. Sci. 55(4), 8 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chevonne Thomas Dancer, F., Dampier, D.A.: A platform independent process model for smartphones based on invariants. In: SADFE 2010: IEEE International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering, pp. 56–60.  https://doi.org/10.1109/SADFE.2010.15
  7. 7.
    Graziano, A.: Research Methods: A Process of Inquiry. Pearson, London (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patil, D.N., Meshram, B.B.: Digital forensic analysis of ubuntu file system. Int. J. Cyber Secur. Digit. Forensics 4(5), 175–186 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jansen, W., Delaitre, A., Moenner, L.: Overcoming impediments to cell phone forensics (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Punja, S.G., Mislan, R.P.: Mobile device analysis. Small Scale Digit. Forensics J. 2(1), 1–16 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Computer ScienceJackson State UniversityJacksonUSA

Personalised recommendations