Challenges of Trustworthy of Digital Evidence and Its Chain of

Custody on Cloud Computing Environment: A Systematic Review

Lucien Rocha Lucien

CESAR, Recife Center for Advanced Studies and Systems, Apolo Street, Recife, Brazil

Keywords: Digital Forensics, Trustworthy, Digital Evidence, Chain of Custody, Cloud Computing.

Abstract: For reliable digital evidence to be admitted in a court of law, it is important to apply scientifically proven

digital forensic investigation techniques to corroborate a suspected security incident. Mainly, traditional

digital forensics techniques focus on computer desktops and servers. However, recent advances in usage of

cloud computing environments increased the need for the application of digital forensic investigation

techniques to their infrastructure, that has some particularities, such as multi-jurisdictions storage, improper

handling by third parties, high level of volatility, etc. In this paper, we perform a systematic review about the

challenges of thustworthy of digital evidence and its chain of custody (CoC) on cloud computing environment.

The literature search yielded 32 articles that met the study criteria. It resulted in mapping the main challenges

found in the literature when applying existing approaches to increase the admissibility in courts of digital

evidence collected on cloud computing environment. Furthermore, this work aims to update the systematic

research regarding this subject covering the period of 2020 to 2023.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, cloud computing and storage has

become the solution many companies and users seek

to solve their problems. Cloud computer solutions

offer an attractive economic benefit at a low cost,

with a pay as you go model, and the flexibility of

having a highly scalable server infrastructure;

furthermore, it prevents companies from having to

invest and maintain their services owever. However,

the use of these technologies has increased potential

threats and criminal activity, while making it hard for

a forensic investigator and law enforcement to track

and prosecute. Futhermore, criminal activity in the

cloud can often leave little evidence (Yankson and

Davis, 2019).

It is increasingly common that digital evidence

relevant to a criminal case is not located in the State

in which a crime was committed, and is dispersed in

the cloud, thus becoming accessible only through the

intervention of the service provider, services that

perform storage (Daniele, 2019).

The challenge of obtaining digital information as

evidence has become more complex with time, and

investigators must ensure the integrity of digital

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3123-2256

evidence so that it may be used in court. The

admissibility of digital evidence can be threatened in

several ways, including improper handling, virus

infection, deliberate tampering, or even by faulty

hardware that compromises its integrity (Granja and

Rafael, 2017).

The preservation of digital evidence involves

three main factors: i) maintaining the reliability of the

data, ii) ensuring the uses of the evidence, and iii)

maintaining the security of the evidence . Care must

be taken to ensure that the digital evidence is

consistent with the data collected from a crime scene

and during investigations (Rasjid et al, 2019).

Increased adoption of the cloud also brought more

adversaries to the cloud. Forensics in a cloud

environment is not the same as traditional forensics,

because of the distinct nature of the cloud (Purnaye

and Kulkami, 2022).

The study contained herein is an effort present a

systematic literature review regarding the challenges

gathering, handling and secure store digital evidence

in cloud computing environment aiming admissibility

of its digital evidence in court.

This article is organized as follows: in Section 2,

basic concepts related to Theoretical Background in

240

Lucien, L.

Challenges of Trustworthy of Digital Evidence and Its Chain of Custody on Cloud Computing Environment: A Systematic Review.

DOI: 10.5220/0012702800003690

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2024) - Volume 2, pages 240-246

ISBN: 978-989-758-692-7; ISSN: 2184-4992

cloud forensics and their issues regarding common

standards and frameworks commonly used by law

enforcements agents (LEA). In Section 3, the

methods, processes, and the protocol used in the

systematic review will be described. In Section 4 and

5, the results related to the conducted research will be

detailed. Finally, in the last session, some conclusions

and future works will be portrayed.

2 BACKGROUND

The cloud computing paradigm presents many

benefits both to the organisations and individuals.

One of such advantages relates to the manner in

which data is managed by the cloud infrastructure.

For instance, data is spread between various data

centres to improve performance and facilitate load-

balancing, scalability, and deduplication features.

Because of this, data requires an efficient indexing so

that retrieval and optimisation performance can take

place to evade duplication that often contributes to the

expansion of storage needs.

However, despite its many benefits, cloud

computing poses significant challenges to the Law

Enforcement Agents (LEA) and Digital Forensics

Experts (DFE) from a forensic perspective. These

include, but are not limited to, issues associated with

the absence of standardisation amongst different

CSPs, varying levels of data security and their Service

Level Agreements, multiple ownerships, tenancies,

and jurisdictions (Almulla et al, 2013). Moreover, the

distributed nature of cloud computing services

presents a variety of challenges to LEAs as data often

resides in a number of different jurisdictions. In

contrast with traditional Digital Forensic in which

data is held on a single device, within cloud

environments data is often spread over multiple

different nodes.

As a result, LEAs need to rely on local laws to be

able to conduct digital evidence acquisition ( Morioka

and Sharbaf, 2015).Therefore, the discrepancy in the

legal systems of different jurisdictions combined with

the lack of cooperation between CSPs also poses

significant challenges from a DF perspective

(Montasari and Hill, 2019).

National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) recognizing the issue, has formed a cloud

forensic working group. The group has published the

working draft “NIST Cloud Computing Forensic

Science Challenges,” which identifies and classifies

cloud forensic challenges (Yankson and Davis,

2019), but due to technology disruption, there are still

difficulties in defining a standard framework to meet

all scenarios (Rasjid et al, 2019).

In this sense, the lack of regulation of a unified

standard to serve cloud service providers, led the

European Union to initiate efforts to define minimum

standards of compliance with providers of cloud

computing services, with the aim of creating

mechanisms to support the investigative process on

this environment (Daniele, 2019).

3 APPLIED PROTOCOL

Based upon the guidelines for the development of

systematic reviews in software engineering described

by Kitchenham (2007) and the analysis of the review

model by Dyba and Dingsøyr (2008), a new

methodology for revision was created. Our review

methodology is composed of six steps: (1)

development of the protocol, (2) identification of

inclusion and exclusion criteria, (3) search for

relevant studies, (4) critical assessment, (5) extraction

of data, and (6) synthesis.

The steps applied to the study contained herein are

presented below: The primary objective of this review

is to answer the following questions:

RQ1: What are the challenges surrounding the chain

of custody of digital evidence in a cloud computing

environment?

RQ2: What solutions are being proposed to tackle this

problem by researchers?

3.1 Search Strategies

In this systematic review, the selection of studies is

guided by specific criteria intended to cover various

perspectives related to digital evidence and cloud

forensic’s chain of custody. The criteria include the

last 5 years papers about the subject in four major

reference bases: IEEE Explore, ACM Digital Library,

Science Direct and Scopus, these bases were chosen

because they concentrate the main research carried

out in this segment.

For this purpose, the following keywords were

chosen: “forensic”, “cloud computing” and

“evidence” to perform the string search on the

reference bases, after search string normalization,

considering the cut-off date on September, 22

2023:

IEEE: ("All Metadata":forensic) AND ("All

Metadata":cloud computing) AND ("All

Metadata":evidence) Filters Applied: 2019 - 2023

Challenges of Trustworthy of Digital Evidence and Its Chain of Custody on Cloud Computing Environment: A Systematic Review

241

SD: ("All Metadata":forensic) AND ("All

Metadata":cloud computing) AND ("All

Metadata":evidence) AND Year:2019-2023

ACM: "query": { AllField:(forensic) AND

AllField:(evidence) AND AllField:(cloud computing) }

"filter": { E-Publication Date: Past 5 years, ACM Content:

DL }

SCOPUS: ALL

( cloud AND computing+evidence+forensic ) AND

PUBYEAR > 2018 AND PUBYEAR < 2024

Table 1: Amount of Studies Found on each Database.

Database Amount of Studies

IEEE Explore 64

Science Direct Elsevier 9

ACM Di

ital Librar

1.114

Sco

us 3.175

TOTAL 4.362

3.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Furthermore, in order to obtain the state of the art in

research, the following criteria were considered for

the selection of articles:

Inclusion Exclusion

• Law Enforcement

• Chain of Custody

• Eletronic Evidence

• Framework

• Admissibility

• Method

• Focus in IT

• Review, Conference Paper

and Journals

• Data forensics

• Hardware

• Internet of Things

• Mobile/Apps forensics

• Digital Forensic Readiness

• Forensic Tool

• Anti Forensics

• Attacks

• Education

• Network Forensics

• Media forensics

• Facial forensics

• Books/Chapter

• Artificial Inteli

ence

The justification for the chosen criteria is because the

digital forensics segment is very broad and

encompasses other market niches outside the area of

cloud computing. For example, books were excluded

to the scope of the search due to the state of the art on

the subject against the book publication schedule.

3.3 Study Selection Process

After the initial search in the databases indicated

above, filtering by titles was carried out, based on the

inclusion and exclusion criteria. The chosen articles

were imported into the Zotero reference control tool

and duplicates articles were eliminated. Next, after

analysing the Abstract and titles, the third and final

filtering of articles was carried out.

Database Filtered by

Title

Filtered by

Abstract

Read

Selection

IEEE Explore 18 13 9

Science Direct

Elsevier

0 0 0

ACM Digital

Library

17 3 2

Scopus 116 51 22

TOTAL 33

Then, after deduplication process, the total amount of

articles selected were 32.

3.4 Quality Assessment

In this stage, the studies underwent a critical

evaluation and were analysed in full, rather than just

their titles or abstracts. Subsequently, the final studies

that were not aligned with the proposal of the

systematic review were eliminated, resulting in the

final set of works.

To assist in quality assessment, seven questions

based on Kitchenham (2007) and Dyba and Dingsøyr

(2008) were used. These questions helped to evaluate

the applicability, quality, accuracy and reliability of

the work. The questions were:

 Q1: Does the study present the research

methodology used?

 Q2: Does the study answer the research

questions?

 Q3: Does the study present aspects related to

challenges, opportunities or next steps in the

topic?

 Q4: Is the study reproducible (research basis)?

4 RESULTS

As was described in the previous section, each of the

primary studies was assessed according to four

quality criteria that relate to rigor and credibility as

well as to relevance.

If considered as a whole, these four criteria

provide a trustworthiness measure to the conclusions

that a particular study can bring to the review. The

classification for each of the criteria used a scale of

positives (1 - yes) and negatives (0 - no) and is

presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Quality Criteria Analysis.

Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Purnaye and Kulkarni, 2022 0 1 1 0

Liu et al, 2021 0 0 1 0

Simou et al, 2019 0 0 1 0

Kumari and Mohapatra, 2022 0 1 1 0

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

242

Table 2: Quality Criteria Analysis (cont.).

Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Ali et al, 2023 1 0 0 0

Sree and Raja, 2022 0 1 0 0

Apirajitha and Remuka, 2021 0 0 1 0

Bai and Sudha, 2023 0 1 1 0

Manral et al, 2019 0 1 1 0

Yankson and Davis, 2019 0 1 1 0

Verma et al, 2023 0 0 1 0

Yan et al, 2020 0 1 0 0

Li et al, 2021 0 1 0 0

Huang et al, 2023 0 1 1 0

Khan et al, 2023 0 0 0 0

Dhake et al,2022 0 1 1 0

Prakash et al, 2022 0 1 1 0

Alruwaili, 2021 0 1 0 0

Tiwari et al, 2021 0 0 0 0

Syed and Anu, 2021 1 1 1 0

Daniele, 2019 0 1 1 0

Al-Dhaqm et al, 2021 1 1 1 1

Ewald, 2019 0 1 1 0

Chauhan and Basal, 2021 0 1 1 0

Srivastava and Choudhary,

2021

0 1 1 0

Sampana, 2019 1 1 1 0

Agbedanu et al, 2019 0 1 1 0

Rasjid et al, 2019 0 1 1 0

Ramadhani and Mulyati,

2019

0 0 1 0

Montasari and Hill, 2019 0 1 1 0

Petroni et al, 2019 0 0 0 0

Hettige and Fernando, 2022 0 1 1 0

Most of the 31 studies analysed provided

information in the context of this research and

contributed in some way to the preparation of this

paper. As seen in the above table, only Petroni et al

(2019), Tiwari et al (2021) and Khan et al (2023)

doesn’t apply the quality criteria, otherwise, only Al-

Dhaqm et al (2021) fully answered and attend all the

quality criteria, followed by Syed and Anu(2021) and

Sampana(2019).

5 DISCUSSIONS

After the analysis and data extraction, steps

performed on the primary works, it was possible to

identify some aspects relating our research questions,

as followed:

RQ1: What are the Challenges Surrounding the

Chain of Custody of Digital (CoC) Evidence in a

Cloud Computing Environment?

Data in the cloud are often physically distributed

among different servers and data centers. Hence the

evidence might be distributed among thousands of

servers, data is inherently volatile, it’s almost

impossible to physically access the hardware and

acquire the evidence due to third parties’ restrictions,

so, investigators will have to depend on the CSP for

evidence gathering, and it would affect the existing

chain-of-custody rules. Investigators will not have the

power to verify the CSP’s process used for the

evidence acquisition. Evidence from multiple time

zones will contain different timestamps (Hettige and

Fernando, 2022).

Hettige and Fernando (2022) also noticed that

cloud computing environments has some

particularities regarding the traditional forensics

(such as: geo location, timezone, multi-jurisdiction,

etc), so the researches had said that traditional digital

forensic models and techniques might not be highly

suited for usage in cloud computing environments,

those information were supported by others autors

cited by them (e.g: Dykstra and Sherman, 2011;

Reilly et al., 2011; Grispos et al., 2012; Martini and

Choo, 2012; Zawoad and Hasan, 2012).

Rasjid et al(2019) also provide an important

analysis regarding the digital preservation models vs.

digital evidence admissibility policy compliance, as

well, the literature review carried out by Agbedanu et

al (2019), Sree and Raja(2022), Bai and Sudha

(2023).

Li et al (2021) also maps that the challenges in

cloud forensics surrounding the CoC are loss of

control, lack of transparency from the CSPs,

jurisdictional issues, inability to turn off all servers,

multi-tenancy, lack of clear security assurance and

lack of sophisticated tools.

On this subject (Purnaye, 2021) makes a relevant

contribution regarding the Comprehensive Study of

Cloud Forensics mapping the future directions about

the subject, as illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1: Future Directions on Cloud forensics.

Challenges of Trustworthy of Digital Evidence and Its Chain of Custody on Cloud Computing Environment: A Systematic Review

243

Other relevant information collected by Purnaye

(2021) evolves the directions of the studies regarding

the subject up to 2019, as represented by figure 2.

Figure 2: What the researchers written about cloud

forensics (Purnaye, 2021).

RQ2: What Solutions are Being Proposed to

Tackle this Problem by Researchers?

Al-Dhaqm et al(2021) clarify the various

methodologies and stipulated guidelines in the

subdomains of digital forensics to articulate the

convergent and divergent (where applicable) towards

a unified generally acceptable guideline for cloud

environments, as well as, Ewald (2019), Daniele

(2019) and Syed and Anu(2021), among which stands

out the ISO 27037:2013, NIST guidelines and the

new Europe Union regulation that create a channel of

direct cooperation between the judicial authorities

interested in acquiring the evidence and the providers

on the EU.

Rasjid et al (2019), Agbedanu et al (2019) and

Prakash et al (2022) had performed surveys and a

taxonomy model to evaluate cloud computing

security and related legal issue. The authors of the

studies proposed new frameworks and new issues to

evaluate during forensics in cloud environment.

Kumari and Mohapatra (2022) and Simou et

al(2019) proposed a novel framework and Agbedanu

et al (2019) performed a literature analysis about the

subject up to 2018.

The solutions to tackle the issue were surrounded

by established an uniform standard, define an

international court to due the multi-jurisdiction

issues, CSP’s forensic readiness (Yankson and Davis,

2019).

6 CONCLUSION

The main objective of this paper was to conduct an

updated search and analysis into the challenges

regarding performing digital forensics on cloud

environment focused on chain of custody and

patterns/standards that could be applied on courts.

To that goal a systematic review was conducted,

briefly analysing 4.362 papers and deep analysing 32

papers in order to discuss topics not only related with

cloud but also how the academy is dealing with the

major issues regarding digital evidence for judicial

accreditation.

During the analysis phases it was clear that cloud

is of highly importance to the technology community

and that there are areas of research to address

technology to enforce digital laws, privacy, and

security. The complexity of these subject requires

continued research and deeper analysis to develop

effective strategies to mitigate the security risks and

establish standards and patterns that fits the laws and

tools issues.

The research demonstrated that India and China

have the largest number of studies on this subject,

beyond that this work updated the systematic review

on cloud forensics in time lapse 2021 – 2023,

enforcing the need for standardizations and valuation

criteria for use by LEA during the forensic on these

environments.

As future works, it is intended to conduct further

studies related to digital evident on cloud

environment and how CSP’s and countries

legislations are working to address these issues.

REFERENCES

Agbedanu, P. R., Wang, P., Nortey, R. N., Odartey, L. K.,

2019. Forensics in the Cloud: A Literature Analysis and

Classification, in: 2019 5th International Conference on

Big Data Computing and Communications (BIGCOM).

pp. 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIGCOM.

2019.00027

Almulla, S., Iraqi, Y., & Jones, A. (2013). Cloud forensics:

A research perspective. In 9

International Conference

on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) (pp.

66–71).

Al-Dhaqm, A., Ikuesan, R.A., Kebande, V.R., Razak, S.A.,

Grispos, G., Choo, K.-K.R., Al-Rimy, B.A.S.,

Alsewari, A.A., 2021. Digital Forensics Subdomains:

The State of the Art and Future Directions. IEEE

Access 9, 152476–152502. https://doi.org/10.1109/

ACCESS.2021.3124262

Ali, M., Ismail, A., Elgohary, H., Darwish, S., Mesbah, S.,

2022. A Procedure for Tracing Chain of Custody in

Digital Image Forensics: A Paradigm Based on Grey

Hash and Blockchain. Symmetry 14. https://doi.org/

10.3390/sym14020334

Alruwaili, F.F., 2021. Custodyblock: A distributed chain of

custody evidence framework. Information 12, 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.3390/info12020088

Aparecido Petroni, B.C., Gonçalves, R.F., Sérgio de Arruda

Ignácio, P., Reis, J.Z., Dolce Uzum Martins, G.J., 2020.

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

244

Smart contracts applied to a functional architecture for

storage and maintenance of digital chain of custody

using blockchain. For. Sci. Int: Dig. Investigation 34.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.300985

Apirajitha, P., Renuka Devi, R., 2021. A Survey on Digital

Forensics in Cloud Environment Using Blockchain

Technology, in: Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Commun.

Technol., ICCCT. Presented at the Proceedings of the

2021 4th International Conf. on Computing and

Communications Technologies, ICCCT 2021, Institute

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp.160–

163. https://doi.org/10.1109/

ICCCT53315.2021.9711768

Bai, V.S., Sudha, T., 2023. A Systematic Literature Review

on Cloud Forensics in Cloud Environment. Internat. J.

Intel. Syst. Appl. Eng. 11, 565–578.

Chauhan, P., Bansal, P., 2021. Enhancing Trust and

Immutability in Cloud Forensics, in: Tuba M., Akashe

S., Joshi A. (Eds.), Adv. Intell. Sys. Comput. Presented

at the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,

Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland

GmbH, pp. 771–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

15-8289-9_74

Daniele, M., 2019. Digital Evidence gathering from service

providers: A worrying paradigm shift in international

cooperation. Revista Brasileira Direito Proces. Penal 5,

1277–1296. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v5i3.288

Dhake, B., Limaye, H., Motwani, D., 2022. Cloud

Forensics: Threat Assessment and Proposed

Mitigations, in: 2022 International Conference for

Advancement in Technology (ICONAT). pp. 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICONAT53423.2022.9725922

Dykstra, Josiah & Sherman, A.T.. (2011). Understanding

Issues in cloud forensics: Two hypothetical case

studies. Journal of Network Forensics. 3. 19-31.

Dyba, T. and Dingsøyr, T.(2008).Empirical studies of agile

software development: A systematic review.

Ewald, U., 2019. Digital Forensics vs. Due Process:

Conflicting Standards or Complementary Approaches?,

in: Proceedings of the Third Central European

Cybersecurity Conference, CECC 2019. Association

for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3360664.3362697

Granja, F.T. M and Rafael, G.D. R. (2017) ‘Model for

digital evidence preservation in criminal research

institutions – PREDECI’, Int. J. Electronic Security and

Digital Forensics, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.150–166.

Grispos, G., Storer, T., & Glisson, W. (2012). Calm before

the storm: The challenges of cloud computing in digital

forensics. International Journal of Digital Crime and

Forensics, 4(2), 28–48.

Hettige KHA and Fernando MSD (2022). A survey on

issues in cloud forensics with an experiment on time

consumption. International Journal of Advanced and

Applied Sciences, 9(3): 19-30

Huang, L., Zhao, C., Chen, S., Zeng, L., 2023. Blockchain:

a promising technology for judicial translation services

in cases with foreign elements. Aslib J. Inf. Manage.

https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2022-0485

Khan, A.A., Laghari, A.A., Kumar, A., Shaikh, Z.A., Baig,

U., Abro, A.A., 2023. Cloud forensics-enabled chain of

custody: A novel and secure modular architecture using

Blockchain Hyperledger Sawtooth. Int. J. Electron.

Secur. Digit. Forensics 15, 413–423. https://doi.org/

10.1504/IJESDF.2023.131959

Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing

systematic literature reviews in software engineering.

Kumari, N., Mohapatra, A.K., 2022. A Novel Framework

For Multi Source Based Cloud Forensic, in: 2022 6th

International Conference on Computing Methodologies

and Communication (ICCMC). pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/

10.1109/ICCMC53470.2022.9753849

Li, W., Wu, J., Cao, J., Chen, N., Zhang, Q., Buyya, R.,

2021. Blockchain-based trust management in cloud

computing systems: a taxonomy, review and future

directions. J. Cloud Comput. 10. https://doi.org/10.

1186/s13677-021-00247-5

Liu, G., He, J., Xuan, X., 2021. A Data Preservation

Method Based on Blockchain and Multidimensional

Hash for Digital Forensics. Complexity 2021. https://

doi.org/10.1155/2021/5536326

Manral, B., Somani, G., Choo, K.-K.R., Conti, M., Gaur,

M.S., 2019. A systematic survey on cloud forensics

challenges, Solutions, and future directions. ACM

Comput Surv 52. https://doi.org/10.1145/3361216

Martini, B., & Choo, K. K. R. (2012). An integrated

conceptual digital forensic framework for cloud

computing. Digital Investigation, 9(2), 71–80. doi:

10.1016/j.diin.2012.07.001

Montasari, R., Hill, R., 2019. Next-Generation Digital

Forensics: Challenges and Future Paradigms, in: Proc.

Int. Conf. Glob. Secur., Saf. Sustain., ICGS3. Presented

at the Proceedings of 12th International Conference on

Global Security, Safety and Sustainability, ICGS3

2019, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Inc. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGS3.2019.8688020

Morioka, Emi & Sharbaf, Mehrdad. (2015). Cloud

Computing: Digital Forensic Solutions. Proceedings -

12th International Conference on Information

Technology: New Generations, ITNG 2015. 589-594.

10.1109/ITNG.2015.99.

Prakash, V., Williams, A., Garg, L., Barik, P., Dhanaraj,

R.K., 2022. Cloud-Based Framework for Performing

Digital Forensic Investigations. Int J Wireless Inf

Networks 29, 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10

776-022-00560-z

Purnaye, P., Kulkarni, V., 2022. A Comprehensive Study

of Cloud Forensics. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 29,

33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-021-09575-w

Ramadhani, E., Mulyati, S., 2020. Mapping the use of

expert system as a form of cloud-based digital forensics

development, in: J. Phys. Conf. Ser. Presented at the

Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Institute of

Physics Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/

1567/3/032032

Rasjid, Z.E., Soewito, B., Witjaksono, G., Abdurahman, E.,

2019. Framework for establishing confidence level of

digital evidence admissibility. ICIC Express Lett. 13,

663–672. https://doi.org/10.24507/icicel.13.08.663

Challenges of Trustworthy of Digital Evidence and Its Chain of Custody on Cloud Computing Environment: A Systematic Review

245

Reilly, D., Wren, C., & Berry, T. (2011). Cloud computing :

Pros and cons for computer forensic investigations.

International Journal Multimedia and Image

Processing, 1(1), 26–34.

Sampana, S.S., 2019. FoRCE (Forensic Recovery of Cloud

Evidence): A Digital Cloud Forensics Framework, in:

2019 IEEE 12th International Conference on Global

Security, Safety and Sustainability (ICGS3). pp. 212–

212. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGS3.2019.8688215

Simou, S., Kalloniatis, C., Gritzalis, S., Katos, V., 2019. A

framework for designing cloud forensic-enabled

services (CFeS). Requir. Eng. 24, 403–430. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s00766-018-0289-y

Sree, R.S., Raja, K., 2022. A Review on Forensic

Investigation Analysis in Cloud Computing

Environments, in: 2022 1st International Conf. on

Computational Science and Technology (ICCST). pp.

1067–1074. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCST55948.

2022.10040384

Srivastava, P., Choudhary, A., 2021. Evolving evidence

gathering process: Cloud forensics, in: Tiwari S., Ng

A.K., Singh N., Suryani E., Mishra K.K. (Eds.), Lect.

Notes Networks Syst. Presented at the Lecture Notes in

Networks and Systems, Springer Science and Business

Media Deutschland GmbH, pp. 227–243. https://

doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8377-3_20

Syed, S., Anu, V., 2021. Digital Evidence Data Collection:

Cloud Challenges, in: 2021 IEEE International

Conference on Big Data (Big Data). pp. 6032–6034.

https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData52589.2021.9672014

Tiwari, A., Mehrotra, V., Goel, S., Naman, K., Maurya, S.,

Agarwal, R., 2021. Developing Trends and Challenges

of Digital Forensics, in: 2021 5th International

Conference on Information Systems and Computer

Networks (ISCON). pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/

ISCON52037.2021.9702301

Verma, S., Kumar, A., Pandey, S., Negi, P., 2023.

Blockchain and Cloud Computing used in Preservation

of Crime Scene Evidences, in: Proc. Int. Conf. Edge

Comput. Appl., ICECAA. Presented at the Proceedings

of the 2nd International Conf. on Edge Computing and

Applications, ICECAA 2023, Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 7–11. https://doi.org/

10.1109/ICECAA58104.2023.10212110

Yan, W., Shen, J., Cao, Z., Dong, X., 2020. Blockchain

Based Digital Evidence Chain of Custody, in:

Proceedings of the 2020 The 2nd International

Conference on Blockchain Technology, ICBCT’20.

Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,

USA, pp. 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3390566

.3391690

Yankson, B., Davis, A., 2019. Analysis of the Current State

of Cloud Forensics: The Evolving Nature of Digital

Forensics, in: 2019 IEEE/ACS 16th International

Conference on Computer Systems and Applications

(AICCSA). pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/AICCSA

47632.2019.9035336

Zawoad, S., & Hasan, R. (2012). I have the proof: Providing

proofs of past data possession in cloud forensics. 2012

International Conference on Cyber Security,

(SocialInformatics), 75–82. doi: 10.1109/Cyber

Security.2012.

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

246