The different types of reports produced in digital forensic investigations

Abstract

The importance of ensuring the results of any digital forensic (DF) examination are effectively communicated cannot be understated. In most cases, this communication will be done via written report, yet despite this there is arguably limited best practice guidance available which is specific for this field in regards to report construction. Poor reporting practices in DF are likely to undermine the reliability of evidence provided across this field, where there is a need for formalised guidance regarding the requirements for effective DF report construction; this should not be a task left solely to each individual practitioner to determine without instruction. For this, the field of DF should look to the wider forensic community and the existing work in this area for support. In line with many other ‘traditional’ forensic science types, a DF practitioner can be commissioned to report in one of three ways - ‘technical’, ‘investigative’ or ‘evaluative’, where each reporting type maintains a specific purpose and interpretative-context, determined by the examination workflow undertaken by a practitioner following client instruction. This work draws upon guidance set out in fundamental forensic science reporting literature in order to describe each reporting type in turn, outlining their scope, content and construction requirements in an attempt to provide support for the DF field.