Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Testing the Comprehensive Digital Forensic Investigation Process Model (the CDFIPM)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Technology for Smart Futures

Abstract

The Comprehensive Digital Forensic Investigation Process Model (the CDFIPM), presented in Montasari (IJESDF 8(4)285–301, 2016), provides guidelines for carrying out digital investigations in the UK jurisdiction in a forensically sound manner. The CDFIPM is comprehensive in that it covers the entire digital forensic investigative process; it is generic such that it can be applied in the three fields of law enforcement, incident response and commerce. The model is also formal in that it synthesises, harmonises and extends the existing digital forensic investigation process models. The CDFIPM also needs to be subjected to an evaluation process in order to determine ‘whether the model has been built right’ and ‘whether the right model has been built’. To this end, the CDFIPM is applied to a case study in this paper to determine whether the model meets the two components of ‘utility’ and ‘usability’.

The original version of this chapter was revised. An erratum to this chapter can be found at DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60137-3_18

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. ACPO. (2012). ACPO good practice guide for digital evidence. U.K. Association of Chief Police Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adams, L., & Courtney, J. (2004). Achieving relevance in IS research via the DAGS framework. 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Big Island, HI, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Adams, R. (2012). The Advanced Data Acquisition Model (ADAM): A process model for digital forensic practice. PhD thesis. Murdoch University.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Adams, R., Hobbs, V., & Mann, G. (2014). The advanced data acquisition model (ADAM): A process model for digital forensic practice. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 8(4), 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Agarwal, A., Gupta, M., Gupta, S., & Gupta, C. (2011). Systematic digital forensic investigation model. International Journal of Computer Science and Security, 5(1), 118–130.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Archer, L. (1984). Systematic method for designers. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Armstrong, C., & Armstrong, H. (2010). Modeling forensic evidence systems using design science. IFIP WG International Working Conference (pp. 282–300).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Balci, O. (2004). Quality assessment, verification, and validation of modeling and simulation applications. Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 1–8). Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beebe, N., & Clark, J. (2005). A hierarchical, objectives-based framework for the digital investigations process. Digital Investigation, 2(2), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carlton, H., & Worthley, R. (2009). An evaluation of agreement and conflict among computer forensic experts. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carrier, B., & Spafford, E. (2003). Getting physical with the digital investigation process. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 2(2), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers and the internet (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ciardhuáin, O. (2004). An extended model of cybercrime investigations. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 3(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, F. (2011). Putting the science in digital forensics. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 6(1), 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen, F. (2012). Update on the state of the science of digital evidence examination. Proceedings of the Conference on Digital Forensics, Security, and Law (pp. 7–18). Richmond, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eekels, J., & Roozenburg, N. (1991). A methodological comparison of the structures of scientific research and engineering design: Their similarities and differences. Design Studies, 12(4), 197–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Freiling, C., & Schwittay, B. (2007). A common process model for incident response and computer forensics. 3rd International Conference on IT-Incident Management & IT-Forensics (pp. 19–40). Stuttgart, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Garfinkel, S., Farrell, P., Roussev, V., & Dinolt, G. (2009). Bringing science to digital forensics with standardized forensic corpora. Digital Investigation, 6, 2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design research in information systems. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. International Organisation for Standardization. (2012). ISO/IEC 27037:2012. Information technology–Security techniques–Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kessler, C. (2010). Judges’ awareness, understanding, and application of digital evidence. PhD thesis, Nova Southeastern University.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kohn, M., Eloff, M., & Eloff, J. (2013). Integrated digital forensic process model. Computers & Security, 38, 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuechler, B., & Vaishnavi, V. (2008). On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leigland, L., & Krings, A. (2004). A formalization of digital forensics. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 3(2), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  26. March, S., & Smith, G. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. March, S., & Storey, V. (2008). Design science in the information systems discipline: An introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 725–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mason, S. (2007). Electronic evidence: Disclosure, discovery and admissibility. London: LexisNexis Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Montasari, R., & Peltola, P. (2015). Computer forensic analysis of private browsing modes. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on global security, safety and sustainability: Tomorrow's challenges of cyber security (pp. 96–109). London: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Montasari, R. (2016). An Ad Hoc detailed review of digital forensic investigation process models. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics, 8(3), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Montasari, R. (2016). A comprehensive digital forensic investigation process model. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics (IJESDF), 8(4), 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nunamaker, J., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. (1990). Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C., Rossi, M., Hui, W., Virtanen, V. & Bragge, J. (2006). The design science research process: A model for producing and presenting information systems research. 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (pp. 83–106). USA.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pollitt, M. (2009). The good, the bad, the unaddressed. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, 2(4), 172–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Reith, M., Carr, C., & Gunsch, G. (2002). An examination of digital forensic models. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 1(3), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rogers, M., Goldman, J., Mislan, R., Wedge, T. & Debrota, S. (2006). Computer forensics field triage process model. Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law (pp. 27–40). Las Vegas, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rossi, M., & Sein, M. (2003). Design research workshop: A proactive research approach. 26th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (pp. 9–12). Haikko, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rowlingson, R. (2004). A ten step process for forensic readiness. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 2(3), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Selamat, S., Yusof, R., & Sahib, S. (2008). Mapping process of digital forensic investigation framework. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 8(10), 163–169.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sherman, S. (2006). A digital forensic practitioner’s guide to giving evidence in a court of law. Proceedings of the 4th Australian Digital Forensics Conference (pp. 1–7). Perth Western, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Smith, R., Grabosky, P., & Urbas, G. (2011). Cyber criminals on trial. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stanfield, A. (2009). Computer forensics, electronic discovery and electronic evidence. Chatswood: LexisNexis Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P., Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1990). Modeling design processes. AI Magazine, 11(4), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  44. US-CERT. (2012). Computer forensics. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Available at: https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/computer-forensics. Accessed 17 June 2016.

  45. Venter, J. (2006). Process flow for cyber forensics training and operations. Available at: http://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/handle/10204/1073. Accessed 17 June 2015.

  46. Valjarevic, A., & Venter, H. (2015). A comprehensive and harmonized digital forensic investigation process model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(6), 1467–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Walls, J., Widmeyer, G., & El Sawy, O. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Watts, S., Shankaranarayanan, G., & Even, A. (2009). Data quality assessment in context: A cognitive perspective. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 202–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wieringa, R. (2009). Design science as nested problem solving. 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (pp. 8–19). Philadelphia, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  50. International Organisation for Standardization. (2015). ISO/IEC 27043:2015. Information technology–Security techniques–Incident investigation principles and processes. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment, Birmingham City University, Millennium Point, Curzon Street, Birmingham, B47XG, UK

    Reza Montasari

Authors
  1. Reza Montasari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Montasari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Suffolk, Suffolk, United Kingdom

    Mohammad Dastbaz

  2. Department of Computer Science, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

    Hamid Arabnia

  3. Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Babak Akhgar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Montasari, R. (2018). Testing the Comprehensive Digital Forensic Investigation Process Model (the CDFIPM). In: Dastbaz, M., Arabnia, H., Akhgar, B. (eds) Technology for Smart Futures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60137-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60137-3_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60136-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60137-3

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation