Computer forensics in forensis

Different users apply computer forensic systems, models, and terminology in very different ways. They often make incompatible assumptions and reach different conclusions about the validity and accuracy of the methods they use to log, audit, and present forensic data. In fact, it can be hard to say w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Operating systems review 2008-04, Vol.42 (3), p.112-122
Hauptverfasser: Peisert, Sean, Bishop, Matt, Marzullo, Keith
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 122
container_issue 3
container_start_page 112
container_title Operating systems review
container_volume 42
creator Peisert, Sean
Bishop, Matt
Marzullo, Keith
description Different users apply computer forensic systems, models, and terminology in very different ways. They often make incompatible assumptions and reach different conclusions about the validity and accuracy of the methods they use to log, audit, and present forensic data. In fact, it can be hard to say who, if anyone is right. We present several forensic systems and discuss situations in which they produce valid and accurate conclusions and also situations in which their accuracy is suspect. We also present forensic models and discuss areas in which they are useful and areas in which they could be augmented. Finally, we present some recommendations about how computer scientists, forensic practitioners, lawyers, and judges could build more complete models of forensics that take into account appropriate legal details and lead to scientifically valid forensic analysis.
doi_str_mv 10.1145/1368506.1368521
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1145_1368506_1368521</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1145_1368506_1368521</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1971-39f47ed073d02fe7d5f3e8c5b93d031716999cbe4809a5c69f6d7ec737a50163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1j7uOwjAQRV2wEs-aDvEDgRkcP6ZcRcAiIdHQW8EZS0FAkM0W_D2vUB3dW1zdI8QYYYaYqzlKbRXo2ZsL7IgeoJaZIgtd0U_pCIAWNfbEpGjO1_8bx2loIl9S7dO0vnxDGoqfUJ4Sj1oOxH613Bd_2Xa33hS_28wjGcwkhdxwBUZWsAhsKhUkW68O9CwkGtRE5A-cW6BSeU1BV4a9kaZUr2cDMf_M-tikFDm4a6zPZbw7BPcycq2Ra43kA6CmPnA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Computer forensics in forensis</title><source>ACM Digital Library Complete</source><creator>Peisert, Sean ; Bishop, Matt ; Marzullo, Keith</creator><creatorcontrib>Peisert, Sean ; Bishop, Matt ; Marzullo, Keith</creatorcontrib><description>Different users apply computer forensic systems, models, and terminology in very different ways. They often make incompatible assumptions and reach different conclusions about the validity and accuracy of the methods they use to log, audit, and present forensic data. In fact, it can be hard to say who, if anyone is right. We present several forensic systems and discuss situations in which they produce valid and accurate conclusions and also situations in which their accuracy is suspect. We also present forensic models and discuss areas in which they are useful and areas in which they could be augmented. Finally, we present some recommendations about how computer scientists, forensic practitioners, lawyers, and judges could build more complete models of forensics that take into account appropriate legal details and lead to scientifically valid forensic analysis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0163-5980</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1145/1368506.1368521</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Operating systems review, 2008-04, Vol.42 (3), p.112-122</ispartof><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1971-39f47ed073d02fe7d5f3e8c5b93d031716999cbe4809a5c69f6d7ec737a50163</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1971-39f47ed073d02fe7d5f3e8c5b93d031716999cbe4809a5c69f6d7ec737a50163</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Peisert, Sean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bishop, Matt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marzullo, Keith</creatorcontrib><title>Computer forensics in forensis</title><title>Operating systems review</title><description>Different users apply computer forensic systems, models, and terminology in very different ways. They often make incompatible assumptions and reach different conclusions about the validity and accuracy of the methods they use to log, audit, and present forensic data. In fact, it can be hard to say who, if anyone is right. We present several forensic systems and discuss situations in which they produce valid and accurate conclusions and also situations in which their accuracy is suspect. We also present forensic models and discuss areas in which they are useful and areas in which they could be augmented. Finally, we present some recommendations about how computer scientists, forensic practitioners, lawyers, and judges could build more complete models of forensics that take into account appropriate legal details and lead to scientifically valid forensic analysis.</description><issn>0163-5980</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo1j7uOwjAQRV2wEs-aDvEDgRkcP6ZcRcAiIdHQW8EZS0FAkM0W_D2vUB3dW1zdI8QYYYaYqzlKbRXo2ZsL7IgeoJaZIgtd0U_pCIAWNfbEpGjO1_8bx2loIl9S7dO0vnxDGoqfUJ4Sj1oOxH613Bd_2Xa33hS_28wjGcwkhdxwBUZWsAhsKhUkW68O9CwkGtRE5A-cW6BSeU1BV4a9kaZUr2cDMf_M-tikFDm4a6zPZbw7BPcycq2Ra43kA6CmPnA</recordid><startdate>200804</startdate><enddate>200804</enddate><creator>Peisert, Sean</creator><creator>Bishop, Matt</creator><creator>Marzullo, Keith</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200804</creationdate><title>Computer forensics in forensis</title><author>Peisert, Sean ; Bishop, Matt ; Marzullo, Keith</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1971-39f47ed073d02fe7d5f3e8c5b93d031716999cbe4809a5c69f6d7ec737a50163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Peisert, Sean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bishop, Matt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marzullo, Keith</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Operating systems review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Peisert, Sean</au><au>Bishop, Matt</au><au>Marzullo, Keith</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Computer forensics in forensis</atitle><jtitle>Operating systems review</jtitle><date>2008-04</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>112</spage><epage>122</epage><pages>112-122</pages><issn>0163-5980</issn><abstract>Different users apply computer forensic systems, models, and terminology in very different ways. They often make incompatible assumptions and reach different conclusions about the validity and accuracy of the methods they use to log, audit, and present forensic data. In fact, it can be hard to say who, if anyone is right. We present several forensic systems and discuss situations in which they produce valid and accurate conclusions and also situations in which their accuracy is suspect. We also present forensic models and discuss areas in which they are useful and areas in which they could be augmented. Finally, we present some recommendations about how computer scientists, forensic practitioners, lawyers, and judges could build more complete models of forensics that take into account appropriate legal details and lead to scientifically valid forensic analysis.</abstract><doi>10.1145/1368506.1368521</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0163-5980
ispartof Operating systems review, 2008-04, Vol.42 (3), p.112-122
issn 0163-5980
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1145_1368506_1368521
source ACM Digital Library Complete
title Computer forensics in forensis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T07%3A40%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Computer%20forensics%20in%20forensis&rft.jtitle=Operating%20systems%20review&rft.au=Peisert,%20Sean&rft.date=2008-04&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=112&rft.epage=122&rft.pages=112-122&rft.issn=0163-5980&rft_id=info:doi/10.1145/1368506.1368521&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1145_1368506_1368521%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true