Digital Forensics: Foundations, Challenges, and Emerging Practices
Digital forensics has become a cornerstone of modern law enforcement, cybersecurity, and corporate investigation. It is the systematic process of identifying, collecting, preserving, analysing, and presenting digital evidence in a way that ensures its integrity and admissibility in court (Li, Dhami & Ho, 2015). As society increasingly relies on digital technologies, digital forensics has expanded across multiple domains—computer, mobile, network, and cloud forensics—to meet the growing demand for evidence-based digital investigation (Saharan & Yadav, 2022). This article explores the principles, legal frameworks, ethical issues, and technological advancements shaping the field, drawing from textbooks, scholarly articles, and professional guidelines relevant to UK and global contexts. 1.0 Defining Digital Forensics and Its Core Domains At its core, digital forensics involves the application of scientific techniques to extract and interpret digital information relevant to legal proceedings. According to Aleke and Trigui (2025), the field is concerned with maintaining evidence integrity, ensuring the chain of custody, and preventing any form of data tampering. The discipline includes several subfields: Computer forensics, which focuses on the analysis of data stored on personal computers and enterprise systems; Mobile forensics, which retrieves data from smartphones and portable devices; Network forensics, which investigates network traffic and communications; and Cloud forensics, which addresses evidence distributed across virtual environments. Each subfield requires specialised tools and methodologies. For instance, Wireshark and EnCase are often used to capture and interpret network and file system data, respectively (Widodo et al., 2024). 2.0 The Digital Forensics Process The digital forensic process follows a structured sequence that ensures evidence reliability. Sibe and Kaunert (2024) describe five essential stages: Identification – recognising potential digital evidence sources, including hard drives, servers, IoT devices, or cloud storage. Collection – acquiring data using forensically sound imaging tools while maintaining integrity through hash values such as MD5 or SHA-256. Preservation – securing evidence in a manner that prevents tampering or alteration, adhering to strict chain-of-custody protocols. Analysis – applying forensic tools to interpret data and uncover relevant patterns, communications, or deleted information. Presentation – reporting findings clearly, ensuring they are legally admissible and comprehensible to non-technical audiences such as judges or juries. For example, in a corporate fraud case, investigators might use Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) tools to correlate log data across systems, enabling them to identify the precise source and time of an intrusion (Rakha, 2024). 3.0 Legal Frameworks Governing Digital Forensics Legal compliance forms the foundation of credible forensic investigation. In the United Kingdom, several statutes define the limits and responsibilities of digital investigators: Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018): Regulates the lawful processing of personal data and imposes strict controls over privacy and consent (Horsman, 2022). Computer Misuse Act 1990: Criminalises unauthorised access and interference with computer systems. Investigatory Powers Act 2016: Governs the use of surveillance and interception techniques by public authorities. These laws, together with the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) Guidelines, ensure that digital evidence handling is consistent and defensible in court. According to Bauge et al. (2025), UK legal frameworks emphasise peer review, methodological transparency, and reproducibility, establishing credibility for forensic testimony. Globally, variations exist—such as the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) guidelines in the United States—but the underlying aim remains the same: to preserve authenticity and traceability of evidence (Elijah, 2025). 4.0 Ethical and Professional Standards Digital forensic practitioners must adhere to ethical codes that safeguard both privacy and justice. Aleke and Trigui (2025) argue that forensic experts face a “dual obligation”: protecting individual rights while ensuring evidence is effectively gathered for public good. Ethical considerations include: Confidentiality: Investigators must ensure sensitive data remains protected and disclosed only when necessary. Objectivity: Analysts should avoid bias and manipulation of findings. Competence: Continuous training is vital to keep pace with technological advances and evolving threats. The British Computer Society (BCS) and the Forensic Science Regulator provide ethical frameworks that mirror international standards. Violations—such as evidence fabrication, unauthorised access, or conflict of interest—can lead to disqualification from testifying or professional sanctions (Harrison, 2024). 5.0 Maintaining Evidence Integrity The integrity of digital evidence is central to its admissibility. Every action performed during forensic analysis must be documented and repeatable. According to Khan and Ahmed (2025), improper handling—such as using non-verified software tools—can render evidence inadmissible. To ensure data authenticity, investigators employ cryptographic hashing and write-blocking devices. These tools verify that the evidence copy remains identical to the original. Harrison (2024) further notes that digital signatures and blockchain-based evidence chains have become innovative solutions to preserve the chain of custody, particularly in cross-border investigations. An example of this is the use of blockchain audit trails in forensic accounting and fraud detection, where timestamps ensure non-repudiation and accountability (Igonor, Amin & Garg, 2025). 6.0 Technological Developments and Emerging Challenges The exponential growth of cloud computing, Internet of Things (IoT), and artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised digital forensics, while also presenting new challenges. Bohlin (2025) highlights that smart home devices generate vast and decentralised data, complicating evidence collection and ownership verification. Furthermore, encryption and anti-forensic techniques such as data obfuscation and file wiping hinder investigative efficiency (Pandey & Singh, 2025). To counter this, emerging tools use machine learning to automate anomaly detection, metadata extraction, and correlation of events across platforms. However, automation introduces risks of false positives and algorithmic bias, necessitating human oversight and expert validation in forensic conclusions (Widodo et al., 2024). 7.0 Digital Forensics in Law Enforcement In law enforcement, digital forensics supports a range of cases—from cyberstalking to terrorism investigations. Agencies such as GCHQ, MI5, and MI6 employ digital forensic units to detect threats and recover data from encrypted devices. Fatoki and Anyasi (2025) assert that integrating forensic practices with judicial processes ensures fair trials and timely prosecution. For instance, during the 2020 EncroChat operation, digital forensic experts successfully decrypted communications between organised crime groups across Europe—demonstrating the power of forensic collaboration and lawful data interception. Similarly, peer-reviewed verification, as discussed by Bauge et al. (2025), has enhanced transparency in UK forensic laboratories, fostering public trust in digital evidence procedures. 8.0 … Read more