A comparison of forensic evidence recovery techniques for a windows mobile smart phone

<p>Acquisition, decoding and presentation of information from mobile devices is complex and challenging. Device memory is usually integrated into the device, making isolation prior to recovery difficult. In addition, manufacturers have adopted a variety of file systems and formats complicating decoding and presentation.</p> <p>A variety of tools and methods have been developed (both commercially and in the open source community) to assist mobile forensics investigators. However, it is unclear to what extent these tools can present a complete view of the information held on a mobile device, or the extent the results produced by different tools are consistent.</p> <p>This paper investigates what information held on a Windows Mobile smart phone can be recovered using several different approaches to acquisition and decoding. The paper demonstrates that no one technique recovers all information of potential forensic interest from a Windows Mobile device; and that in some cases the information recovered is conflicting.</p&gt

Source identification for mobile devices, based on wavelet transforms combined with sensor imperfections

One of the most relevant applications of digital image forensics is to accurately identify the device used for taking a given set of images, a problem called source identification. This paper studies recent developments in the field and proposes the mixture of two techniques (Sensor Imperfections and Wavelet Transforms) to get better source identification of images generated with mobile devices. Our results show that Sensor Imperfections and Wavelet Transforms can jointly serve as good forensic features to help trace the source camera of images produced by mobile phones. Furthermore, the model proposed here can also determine with high precision both the brand and model of the device

Forensic Face Recognition: A Survey

Beside a few papers which focus on the forensic aspects of automatic face recognition, there is not much published about it in contrast to the literature on developing new techniques and methodologies for biometric face recognition. In this report, we review forensic facial identification which is the forensic experts‟ way of manual facial comparison. Then we review famous works in the domain of forensic face recognition. Some of these papers describe general trends in forensics [1], guidelines for manual forensic facial comparison and training of face examiners who will be required to verify the outcome of automatic forensic face recognition system [2]. Some proposes theoretical framework for application of face recognition technology in forensics [3] and automatic forensic facial comparison [4, 5]. Bayesian framework is discussed in detail and it is elaborated how it can be adapted to forensic face recognition. Several issues related with court admissibility and reliability of system are also discussed. \ud Until now, there is no operational system available which automatically compare image of a suspect with mugshot database and provide result usable in court. The fact that biometric face recognition can in most cases be used for forensic purpose is true but the issues related to integration of technology with legal system of court still remain to be solved. There is a great need for research which is multi-disciplinary in nature and which will integrate the face recognition technology with existing legal systems. In this report we present a review of the existing literature in this domain and discuss various aspects and requirements for forensic face recognition systems particularly focusing on Bayesian framework

Camera-based Image Forgery Localization using Convolutional Neural Networks

Camera fingerprints are precious tools for a number of image forensics tasks. A well-known example is the photo response non-uniformity (PRNU) noise pattern, a powerful device fingerprint. Here, to address the image forgery localization problem, we rely on noiseprint, a recently proposed CNN-based camera model fingerprint. The CNN is trained to minimize the distance between same-model patches, and maximize the distance otherwise. As a result, the noiseprint accounts for model-related artifacts just like the PRNU accounts for device-related non-uniformities. However, unlike the PRNU, it is only mildly affected by residuals of high-level scene content. The experiments show that the proposed noiseprint-based forgery localization method improves over the PRNU-based reference