Advertisement

Integration of Mobile Forensic Tool Capabilities

  • Ping Wang
  • Matt Rosenberg
  • Hubert D’Cruze
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 738)

Abstract

Mobile forensics has been gaining in demand and significance with fast-growing number of users for mobile devices such as smartphones. Mobile forensics tools provide important capabilities for digital forensic investigators to extract, examine, and analyze evidence data uncovered from mobile devices. Due to the limitations of various tools, this paper argues for an integrated approach to mobile forensic tool capabilities through combined use of different tools. This study provides empirical data that demonstrates the benefit of integrating the strengths of two different mobile forensic tools, Cellebrite UFED and Oxygen Forensics, in evidence extraction from two sample Samsung Galaxy smartphones.

Keywords

Mobile forensic tools Evidence extraction Smartphone Cellebrite UFED Oxygen Forensics 

References

  1. 1.
    R. Wilson, H. Chi, A case study for mobile device forensics tools, in Proceedings of the South East Conference on—ACM SE ’17 (2017),  https://doi.org/10.1145/3077286.3077564
  2. 2.
    Symantec, Internet security threat report (2016), http://www.symantec.com/threatreport/
  3. 3.
    B. Nelson, A. Phillips, C. Steuart, Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations, 5th edn. (Cengage Learning, Boston, 2016) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Casey, B. Turnbull, Digital evidence on mobile devices, in Digital Evidence and Computer Crime, 3rd edn, ed. by E. Casey, (Elsevier, Inc., London, 2011), pp. 1–44Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). Guidelines on mobile device forensics (Special Publication 800-101 Revision 1) (2014), http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-101r1.pdf
  6. 6.
    O. Osho, S.O. Ohida, Comparative evaluation of mobile forensic tools. I.J. Inform. Technol. Comput. Sci. 1, 74–83 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). Mobile device tool specification (2016), https://www.cftt.nist.gov/documents/Mobile%20Device%20Tool%20Secification_v2.0.pdf
  8. 8.
    S. Bommisetty, R. Tamma, H. Mahalik, Practical mobile forensics (2014), http://proquestcombo.safaribooksonline.com. ezproxy.umuc.edu/book/hardware-and-gadgets/9781783288311
  9. 9.
    NIST, Cell phone forensic tools: an overview and analysis update (2007), https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=7414
  10. 10.
    M. Yates, Practical investigations of digital forensics tools for mobile devices, in 2010 Information Security Curriculum Development Conference on—InfoSecCD ’10 (2010),  https://doi.org/10.1145/1940941.1940972
  11. 11.
    O. Afonin, Mobile forensic tools and case studies, in Mobile Forensics—Advanced Investigative Strategies (2016), http://proquestcombo.safaribooksonline.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/book/networking/forensic-analysis/9781786464484
  12. 12.
    K.A. Zaabi, Android forensics: investigating social networking cybercrimes against man-in-the-middle attacks, in 2016 Cybersecurity and Cyberforensics Conference (CCC) (2016),  https://doi.org/10.1109/ccc.2016.15

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert Morris UniversityMoonUSA
  2. 2.Allegheny County Police DepartmentPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations