Unlocking Digital Truth Evaluating Mobile Forensic Tools in Criminal Investigations

Introduction

As mobile devices increasingly become digital witnesses in modern criminal cases, forensic investigators rely heavily on specialized tools to extract valuable data. This research delves into a comparative analysis of three leading proprietary mobile forensic tools—Cellebrite UFED, MSAB-XRY, and Oxygen Forensic Detective—to determine their efficiency in physical data acquisition and artifact recovery. Visit https://www.forensicscijournal.com/ for more groundbreaking research in digital forensics and criminal investigation.

The Rising Need for Mobile Forensics

With over 5 billion global smartphone users, digital evidence embedded within these devices plays a crucial role in investigations. The rise in cybercrime, data breaches, and mobile-specific criminal activities underscores the importance of robust forensic methods. Mobile forensics, encompassing acquisition, analysis, and presentation of digital evidence, helps law enforcement navigate these complex data landscapes.

Comparative Performance of Forensic Tools

This study rigorously tested the following proprietary tools:

• Cellebrite UFED (v7.50.0.137)
• MSAB-XRY (v10.0.0)
• Oxygen Forensic Detective (v13.6.0.47)

Using a Samsung Galaxy M31 (Android 11, Dec 2021 patch), the tools were evaluated for their ability to perform physical data extraction and retrieve deleted artifacts. The device was placed in Download Mode, bypassing pattern locks, and enabling secure data access.

Key Findings

• Total Artifacts Extracted:
  • Cellebrite UFED: 553,455
  • MSAB-XRY: 940,039
  • Oxygen Forensic Detective: 1,176,939
• Deleted Artifacts Recovery (selected examples):
  • Messages:
    • Cellebrite: 3,713 (50 deleted)
    • MSAB-XRY: 9,626 (457 deleted)
    • Oxygen: 581,574 (no deleted data info)
  • Files & Media:
    • MSAB-XRY recovered the highest volume including 34,794 deleted files.

A detailed analysis can be found in our main journal article journal.jfsr.1001039.

Evaluating Tool Strengths and Challenges

• Oxygen Forensic Detective stood out for extracting social media artifacts, particularly WhatsApp and Google Duo on-call snapshots.
• MSAB-XRY offered superior log reporting and better media carving capabilities.
• Cellebrite UFED proved effective for general extraction but slightly lagged in report detail structuring.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), forensic tools must be validated for accuracy and reproducibility. This aligns with the study’s emphasis on tool compatibility with specific device OS and patch levels.

Implications for Forensic Science

This analysis reinforces the need for continuous updates to forensic tools to keep pace with rapid smartphone advancements. It also supports law enforcement in choosing the most effective tools based on case-specific requirements—especially when handling locked, encrypted, or damaged devices.

For more digital forensics insights, visit https://www.forensicscijournal.com/.

Key Takeaways

• Physical data acquisition is essential for recovering deleted data in mobile forensics.
• Tool selection should consider OS compatibility, extraction capabilities, and artifact reporting clarity.
• Proprietary tools often outperform open-source tools in forensic accuracy and efficiency.

Call-to-Action

Explore more studies at https://www.forensicscijournal.com/ and join the conversation by sharing your thoughts in the comments below!

Disclaimer: This content is generated using AI assistance and should be reviewed for accuracy and compliance before considering this article and its contents as a reference. Any mishaps or grievances raised due to the reusing of this material will not be handled by the author of this article.