Digital Evidence Collection: Forensic Plan of Action
This paper presents a structured plan of action for collecting, preserving, and analyzing digital evidence in response to a suspected case of intellectual property theft by a company employee. Drawing on internationally recognized standards — including ISO/IEC 27037:2012, ISO/IEC 27041:2015, ISO/IEC 27042:2015, and NIST Special Publication 800-86 — the paper outlines strategies for initial containment, forensic tool selection, chain-of-custody maintenance, evidence examination, and conclusion-drawing. It also addresses how to present findings clearly and effectively to senior management. The approach emphasizes accuracy, transparency, and adherence to forensic best practices to support potential legal proceedings and future policy improvements.
- Introduction: Overview of the digital IP theft investigation plan
- Strategy for Maximizing Evidence Collection and Minimizing Impact: Initial assessment, containment, and chain-of-custody strategy
- Tools and Techniques for Evidence Gathering, Preparation, and Analysis: Forensic software tools and their specific investigative uses
- Collection and Preservation of Evidence: Device isolation, imaging, labeling, and secure storage
- Examination of Seized Evidence and Drawing Conclusions: Keyword search, timeline analysis, log review, and validation
- Presentation to Senior Management and Conclusion: Communicating findings and recommendations to leadership
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper consistently anchors each procedural recommendation to a specific, named industry standard (ISO/IEC 27037, ISO/IEC 27041, ISO/IEC 27042, NIST SP 800-86), lending the plan credibility and real-world applicability.
- Tool recommendations (FTK Imager, EnCase, Memoryze, Splunk, Autopsy, Wireshark) are concrete and tied directly to specific investigative needs, demonstrating applied technical knowledge rather than abstract description.
- The paper maintains a clear audience awareness throughout, culminating in practical guidance for presenting technical findings to non-technical senior management.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates standards-based argumentation — every procedural claim is supported by a reference to an internationally recognized forensic standard or a peer-reviewed citation. This technique is particularly effective in professional and technical writing because it grounds recommendations in external authority rather than personal opinion, strengthening both credibility and legal defensibility.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a logical operational sequence: it opens with scope and strategy, moves through tool selection and evidence collection, advances to examination and conclusion-drawing, and closes with stakeholder communication. Each section builds on the previous one, mirroring an actual forensic investigation workflow. The conclusion reinforces the overarching values of accuracy, transparency, and best-practice adherence.
Introduction
This paper outlines the approach for examining digital evidence related to a suspected violation of company policy. It presents senior management with a plan for collecting and maximizing evidence in a case of suspected digital intellectual property (IP) theft. The methods described are grounded in forensic best practices and standards, including ISO/IEC 27037, ISO/IEC 27041, ISO/IEC 27042, and NIST Special Publication 800-86.
Strategy for Maximizing Evidence Collection and Minimizing Impact
Based on the standards of ISO/IEC 27037 and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-86, the strategy should begin with an initial assessment and containment. First, there needs to be a clear understanding of the scope of the potential breach — specifically, what the suspect did and how it was done.
The first step, in accordance with ISO/IEC 27037:2012 (regarding identification, collection, and preservation of evidence), is to discreetly monitor the suspect's digital activities and pinpoint the devices he uses or has used. This stage of the investigation should be kept strictly confidential and involve only key personnel, so as to prevent the suspect from becoming alarmed or attempting to conceal his tracks (Ajijola et al., 2014).
Second, an important component of the strategy is maintaining a rigorous chain of custody, also in accordance with ISO/IEC 27037:2012 (Ajijola et al., 2014). Every piece of evidence collected should be documented with information on who handled it, when it was handled, the location, and the purpose. Documentation of the chain of custody helps to maintain the integrity of the evidence, which will be of crucial importance when it comes to admissibility in court.
Tools and Techniques for Evidence Gathering, Preparation, and Analysis
Drawing from NIST Special Publication 800-86 and ISO/IEC 27041:2015 — which pertains to the selection of appropriate digital forensic tools and approaches — the investigation team will use a range of specialized tools and techniques. These include disk imaging tools such as FTK Imager or EnCase (Shah et al., 2017). These tools can create bit-by-bit copies of the suspect's hard drives, ensuring that the original data remains untouched.
For capturing data from a system that is currently running, tools such as Memoryze can be used (Dykstra & Sherman, 2012). Likewise, Splunk can be used to analyze logs from different systems to trace unauthorized access or data transfers, helping to establish a digital footprint of any wrongdoing (Baráth, 2016). In instances where deleted files need to be recovered and analyzed for evidence, Autopsy will be of use (Kolla, 2022). Finally, if data exfiltration is suspected, network monitoring tools like Wireshark should be used to dissect network traffic (Burschka & Dupasquier, 2016).
References
Ajijola, A., Zavarsky, P., & Ruhl, R. (2014, December). A review and comparative evaluation of forensics guidelines of NIST SP 800-101 Rev. 1: 2014 and ISO/IEC 27037: 2012. In World Congress on Internet Security (WorldCIS-2014) (pp. 66–73). IEEE.
Baráth, J. (2016). Monitoring of department network — administrator view. Science & Military Journal, 11(1), 56.
Burschka, S., & Dupasquier, B. (2016, December). Tranalyzer: Versatile high performance network traffic analyser. In 2016 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
Dykstra, J., & Sherman, A. T. (2012). Acquiring forensic evidence from infrastructure-as-a-service cloud computing: Exploring and evaluating tools, trust, and techniques. Digital Investigation, 9, S90–S98.
Jansen, W., & Ayers, R. (2007). Guidelines on cell phone forensics. NIST Special Publication, 800(101), 800–101.
Kolla, V. R. K. (2022). A comparative analysis of OS forensics tools. International Journal of Research in IT and Management (IJRIM), 12(4).
Shah, M. S. M. B., Saleem, S., & Zulqarnain, R. (2017). Protecting digital evidence integrity and preserving chain of custody. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 12(2), 12.
Wilson-Wilde, L. (2018). The international development of forensic science standards — a review. Forensic Science International, 288, 1–9.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.