1M.Sc. Forensic Science Student, Amity Institute of Forensic Sciences, Amity University, Sector-125, Noida-201313 (Uttar Pradesh), India
2Assistant Professor and Program Leader, Amity Institute of Forensic Sciences, Amity University, Sector-125, Noida-201313 (Uttar Pradesh), India
*Corresponding Author: Dr. Amarnath Mishra (M.Sc., M.Phil., Ph.D. Forensic Sc.) Amity Institute of Forensic Sciences, Amity University, Sector-125, Noida-201313 (Uttar Pradesh), India, Contact : +91 91-9818978527, Email: amishra5@amity.edu, drmishraa1@gmail.com
Today, a wide range of digital forensic tools are available, produced by a number of software businesses for digital forensics investigations. In a court of law, selecting and employing the right instrument might be a deciding factor. As a result, proper rating and comparison of diverse forensic tools is required. This article discusses the various hardware and software forensic techniques available for analysing digital evidence.
Different digital forensic tools such as FTK Imager, Encase, Paladin suite, Cellebrite, Oxygen forensic tool and Tableau hardware have been analysed using computer system and USB drive. Imaging of USB have been performed for retrieve the information that have been performed.
The acquisition and verification times were measured using the FTK imager and EnCase forensic imager tools. Physical acquisition on the FTK imager took about 22 minutes, while physical acquisition on the EnCase forensic imager took about 1 hour 1 minute. Physical image verification took 13 minutes with the FTK imager and 50 minutes with the EnCase forensic imager.
When compared to EnCase imager, FTK imager is simpler, faster, and easier to use because EnCase takes longer to acquire the image than FTK. The capabilities of Cellebrite UFED and Oxygen detective forensic instruments are nearly same, although UFED is preferable when it comes to ease of use.
Digital forensics, Data extraction tools, Data acquisition, Data Analysis, FTK Imager
