Reason #1 To Vote Cellebrite For A 2016 Forensic 4:Cast Award

For the eighth consecutive year Cellebrite has been nominated by our dedicated UFED users and the digital forensic community in recognition of our success in delivering the most innovative and functional mobile forensic tools.Thanks for your nominations in the following categories:

-UFED Touch for phone forensic hardware of the year
-UFED Physical Analyzer and UFED4PC for phone forensic software of the year
-Digital forensic organization of the year

If you haven’t already voted, here is a good reason why Cellebrite deserves the Forensic 4:cast Awards:

Consistently First, Often Unmatched

Get The Latest DFIR News!

Top DFIR articles in your inbox every month.


Unsubscribe any time. We respect your privacy - read our privacy policy.

Cellebrite’s UFED consistently brings critical mobile forensic capabilities first to the lab and field, and many of these capabilities remain unmatched for months or years. Just in our last two releases (4.5 and 5.0) we included 26 industry-first capabilities, and 22 are still exclusive for Cellebrite. Our recently released UFED 5.0 includes industry-first features and functionality that make your life easier, and your investigation more efficient – this includes a new validation capability, and unifying multiple extractions in a single unified report. We were also quick to include support for file system and logical extractions for the recently launched Samsung Galaxy S7 and iPhone SE.

Our innovation timeline will further demonstrate why we are the undisputed pioneer in breakthrough device specific mobile forensic capabilities. With UFED, chances are you will have these critical capabilities when you need them, when they are essential to your investigation, and well before any other tool currently on the market.

So in a nutshell, you can count on us to continue being the first to provide you with the most innovative, extensive and technologically advanced mobile device support in the industry.

Does UFED play an important role in your investigations? If you think so, then vote for us today!

Leave a Comment

Latest Videos

Quantifying Data Volatility for IoT Forensics With Examples From Contiki OS

Forensic Focus 22nd June 2022 5:00 am

File timestamps are used by forensics practitioners as a fundamental artifact. For example, the creation of user files can show traces of user activity, while system files, like configuration and log files, typically reveal when a program was run. 

Despite timestamps being ubiquitous, the understanding of their exact meaning is mostly overlooked in favor of fully-automated, correlation-based approaches. Existing work for practitioners aims at understanding Windows and is not directly applicable to Unix-like systems. 

In this paper, we review how each layer of the software stack (kernel, file system, libraries, application) influences MACB timestamps on Unix systems such as Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and macOS.

We examine how POSIX specifies the timestamp behavior and propose a framework for automatically profiling OS kernels, user mode libraries and applications, including compliance checks against POSIX.

Our implementation covers four different operating systems, the GIO and Qt library, as well as several user mode applications and is released as open-source.

Based on 187 compliance tests and automated profiling covering common file operations, we found multiple unexpected and non-compliant behaviors, both on common operations and in edge cases.

Furthermore, we provide tables summarizing timestamp behavior aimed to be used by practitioners as a quick-reference.

Learn more: https://dfrws.org/presentation/a-systematic-approach-to-understanding-macb-timestamps-on-unixlike-systems/

File timestamps are used by forensics practitioners as a fundamental artifact. For example, the creation of user files can show traces of user activity, while system files, like configuration and log files, typically reveal when a program was run.

Despite timestamps being ubiquitous, the understanding of their exact meaning is mostly overlooked in favor of fully-automated, correlation-based approaches. Existing work for practitioners aims at understanding Windows and is not directly applicable to Unix-like systems.

In this paper, we review how each layer of the software stack (kernel, file system, libraries, application) influences MACB timestamps on Unix systems such as Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and macOS.

We examine how POSIX specifies the timestamp behavior and propose a framework for automatically profiling OS kernels, user mode libraries and applications, including compliance checks against POSIX.

Our implementation covers four different operating systems, the GIO and Qt library, as well as several user mode applications and is released as open-source.

Based on 187 compliance tests and automated profiling covering common file operations, we found multiple unexpected and non-compliant behaviors, both on common operations and in edge cases.

Furthermore, we provide tables summarizing timestamp behavior aimed to be used by practitioners as a quick-reference.

Learn more: https://dfrws.org/presentation/a-systematic-approach-to-understanding-macb-timestamps-on-unixlike-systems/

YouTube Video UCQajlJPesqmyWJDN52AZI4Q_i0zd7HtluzY

A Systematic Approach to Understanding MACB Timestamps on Unixlike Systems

Forensic Focus 21st June 2022 5:00 am

This error message is only visible to WordPress admins

Important: No API Key Entered.

Many features are not available without adding an API Key. Please go to the YouTube Feed settings page to add an API key after following these instructions.

Latest Articles

Share to...