As to what parts of these, in what combination, depends on jurisdiction, and the judges. The admittance of the expert and therefore digital forensics evidence is driven by Frye, Daubert, and Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 702 & 703. It has nothing to do with if the tool actually works. If the tool is used, and have been "tested" in court, that is, lawyers tried to rip it apart and withstood the attacks, it is considered a "court tested" tool. The question is, will the "gatekeeper" (usually judge) allow the tool to be used? So, there is no such thing as "court approved" or "court credited", per se either. To be pedantic, in the US there is no such thing as "acceptable software", in general. Irrelvant submissions will be pruned in an effort towards tidiness. Vote based on the quality of the content. Topics include digital forensics, incident response, malware analysis, and more. This subreddit is not limited to just the computers and encompasses all media that may also fall under digital forensics (e.g., cellphones, video, etc.). The field is the application of several information security principles and aims to provide for attribution and event reconstruction following forth from audit processes. A community dedicated towards the branch of forensic science encompassing the recovery and investigation of material found in digital devices, often in relation to computer crime.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |