Digital forensic process: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:51, 11 June 2016

Revision as of 06:15, 24 June 2016

Line 18:

There have been many attempts to develop a process model but so far none have been universally accepted. Part of the reason for this may be due to the fact that many of the process models were designed for a specific environment, such as law enforcement, and they therefore could not be readily applied in other environments such as incident response.<ref name="adams" /> This is a list of the main models since 2001 in chronological order:<ref name="adams" />

The Abstract Digital Forensic Model (Reith, et al., 2002)

The Integrated Digital Investigative Process (Carrier & Spafford, 2003)

An Extended Model of Cybercrime Investigations (Ciardhuain, 2004)

The Enhanced Digital Investigation Process Model (Baryamureeba & Tushabe, 2004)

The Digital Crime Scene Analysis Model (Rogers, 2004)

A Hierarchical, Objectives-Based Framework for the Digital Investigations Process (Beebe & Clark, 2004)

Framework for a Digital Investigation (Kohn, et al., 2006)

The Four Step Forensic Process (Kent, et al., 2006)

FORZA - Digital forensics investigation framework (Ieong, 2006)

Process Flows for Cyber Forensics Training and Operations (Venter, 2006)

The Common Process Model (Freiling & Schwittay, (2007)

The Two-Dimensional Evidence Reliability Amplification Process Model (Khatir, et al., 2008)

The Digital Forensic Investigations Framework (Selamat, et al., 2008)

The Systematic Digital Forensic Investigation Model (SRDFIM) (Agarwal, et al., 2011)

==Seizure==