Advertisement

Classifying the Authenticity of Evaluated Smartphone Data

  • Heloise PieterseEmail author
  • Martin Olivier
  • Renier van Heerden
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 569)

Abstract

Advances in smartphone technology coupled with the widespread use of smartphones in daily activities create large quantities of smartphone data. This data becomes increasingly important when smartphones are linked to civil or criminal investigations. As with all forms of digital data, smartphone data is susceptible to intentional or accidental alterations by users or installed applications. It is, therefore, essential to establish the authenticity of smartphone data before submitting it as evidence. Previous research has formulated a smartphone data evaluation model, which provides a methodical approach for evaluating the authenticity of smartphone data. However, the smartphone data evaluation model only stipulates how to evaluate smartphone data without providing a formal outcome about the authenticity of the data.

This chapter proposes a new classification model that provides a grade of authenticity for evaluated smartphone data along with a measure of the completeness of the evaluation. Experimental results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed model in classifying the authenticity of smartphone data.

Keywords

Mobile device forensics smartphone data authenticity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Albano, A. Castiglione, G. Cattaneo, G. De Maio and A. De Santis, On the construction of a false alibi on the Android OS, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems, pp. 685–690, 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Bader and I. Baggili, iPhone 3GS forensics: Logical analysis using Apple iTunes Backup Utility, Small Scale Digital Device Forensics Journal, vol. 4(1), 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Casey, Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet, Academic Press, Waltham, Massachusetts, 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Cecere, N. Corrocher and R. Battaglia, Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design? Telecommunications Policy, vol. 39(3-4), pp. 162–175, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Cohen, Digital Forensic Evidence Examination, Fred Cohen and Associates, Livermore, California, 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Duranti, From digital diplomatics to digital records forensics, Archivaria, vol. 68, pp. 39–66, 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Hannon, An increasingly important requirement: Authentication of digital evidence, Journal of the Missouri Bar, vol. 70(6), pp. 314–323, 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Harris, Arriving at an anti-forensics consensus: Examining how to define and control the anti-forensics problem, Digital Investigation, vol. 3(S), pp. S44–S49, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Jansen and R. Ayers, Guidelines on Cell Phone Forensics, NIST Special Publication 800-101, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Losavio, Non-technical manipulation of digital data, in Advances in Digital Forensics, M. Pollitt and S. Shenoi (Eds.), Springer, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 51–63, 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Pieterse, M. Olivier and R. van Heerden, Playing hide-and-seek: Detecting the manipulation of Android timestamps, Proceedings of the Information Security for South Africa Conference, 2015.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Pieterse, M. Olivier and R. van Heerden, Evaluating the authenticity of smartphone evidence, in Advances in Digital Forensics XIII, G. Peterson and S. Shenoi (Eds.), Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 41–61, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Pieterse, M. Olivier and R. van Heerden, Smartphone data evaluation model: Identifying authentic smartphone data, Digital Investigation, vol. 24, pp. 11–24, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Pieterse, M. Olivier and R. van Heerden, Detecting manipulated smartphone data on Android and iOS devices, in Communications in Computer and Information Science, H. Venter, M. Loock, M. Coetzee, M. Eloff and J. Eloff (Eds.), Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 89–103, 2019.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Schatz, Digital Evidence: Representation and Assurance, Ph.D. Thesis, Information Security Institute, Faculty of Information Technology, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heloise Pieterse
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Martin Olivier
    • 2
  • Renier van Heerden
    • 3
  1. 1.Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.University of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.South African Research and Education Network in PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations