The purpose of the conducted study was to explore the credentialing of digital forensic investigators, drawing from applicable literature. A qualitative, descriptive research design was adopted which entailed searching across Google Scholar and ProQuest databases for peer reviewed articles on the subject matter. The resulting scholarship was vetted for timeliness and relevance prior to identification of key ideas on credentialing. The findings of the study indicated that though credentialing was a major issue in digital forensics with an attentive audience of stakeholders, it had been largely overshadowed by the fundamental curricula problems in the discipline. A large portion of research and efforts were directed towards designing a clear and standardized framework for teaching digital forensics.

While contending with an apparent scarcity of literature, it was apparent that state and federal governments were relatively passive in offering credentials to digital forensic investigators. This had been mostly left to private companies such as Mile2, EC-Council and ISC2, with the government providing some guidelines through the Department of Justice (DoJ) and affiliates like NIST, OSAC and NAS. The involvement of private credentialing in some cases had led to mis-trials and thus there has been a need to have a unified framework for collection, reporting, and submission of digital forensic evidence. It would be recommended that more efforts be directed towards credentialing including advocacy, funding and research and a national framework for teaching digital forensics to be developed together with a standard credentialing system. Additionally, the state and federal governments would need to step up and take active roles in the credentialing process.


Abdalla, S., Hazem, S., & Hashem S. (2007). Guideline Model for Digital Forensic Investigation. Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 2007

Alva, A. & Endicott-Popovsky, B. (2012). Digital evidence education in schools of law.

The Journal of Digital Forensics, Security, and Law, 7(2).

Altheide, C., & Carvey, H. (2011). Digital forensics with open source tools. Elsevier.

Beebe, N. & Clark, J. (2004), “A hierarchical, objectives-based framework for the digital investigations process”, Paper presented at the DFRWS, June 2004, Baltimore, MD.

Bradshaw, K. & Jordaan, J. (2015). The current state of digital forensic practitioners in South Africa: Examining the qualifications, certifications, training and experience of South African digital forensic practitioners. 2015 Information Security for South Africa (ISSA).

Brenner, S.W., Carrier, B. & Henninger, J. (2004). The Trojan horse defense in cybercrime

cases. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal21(1). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=chtlj.

Butler, J. M. (2015). US initiatives to strengthen forensic science & international standards in forensic DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 18, 4-20.

Butler, J. M. (2017). Recent activities in the United States involving the National Commission on Forensic Science and the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49(5), 526-540.

Carrier Brian & Spafford (2003), “Getting Physical with the Digital Investigation Process”, International Journal of Digital Evidence, Volume 2 (Issue 2):3.

Casey, E. (2009). Handbook of digital forensics and investigation. Academic Press.

Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers, and the internet. Academic press.

Flory, T. A. C. (2015). Digital forensics in law enforcement: A need based analysis of Indiana agencies (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).

Freiling, F., & Schwittay, B. (2007). A common process model for incident response and digital forensics. Proceedings of the IMF2007.

Garfinkel, S. L. (2010). Digital forensics research: The next 10 years. digital investigation, 7, S64-S73.

Garfinkel, S., Farrell, P., Roussev, V., & Dinolt, G. (2009). Bringing science to digital forensics with standardized forensic corpora. digital investigation, 6, S2-S11.

George, E. (2004). UK Computer Misuse Act – the Trojan virus defence: Regina v Aaron

Caffrey, Southwark Crown Court. Digital Investigation1(89).

Gladyshev, P., Marrington, A., & Baggili, I. (Eds.). (2014). Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime: Fifth International Conference, ICDF2C 2013, Moscow, Russia, September 26-27, 2013, Revised Selected Papers (Vol. 132). Springer.

Jordaan, J. (2012). A sample of digital forensic quality assurance in the South African

criminal justice system.Information Security for South Africa (ISSA) 1-9.

Kessler, G. C. (2007, March). Anti-forensics and the digital investigator. In Australian Digital Forensics Conference (p. 1).

Lang, A., Bashir, M., Campbell, R., & DeStefano, L. (2014). Developing a new digital forensics curriculum. Digital Investigation, 11, S76-S84.

Leonardo, Thomas; White, Doug; and Rea, Alan (2012) “To License or Not to License Updated: An Examination of State Statutes Regarding Private Investigators and Digital Examiners,” Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: Vol. 7: No. 3, Article 5.

Lillard, T. V. (2010). Digital forensics for network, Internet, and cloud computing: a forensic evidence guide for moving targets and data. Syngress Publishing.

Losavio, M., Seigfried-Spellar, K. C., & Sloan III, J. J. (2016). Why digital forensics is not a profession and how it can become one. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(2), 143-162.

Lundquist, R. (2016). An Examination of Failed Digital Forensics and the Criminal Justice System(Doctoral dissertation, Utica College).

Meyers, M., & Rogers, M. (2004). Computer forensics: The need for standardization and

certification. International Journal of Digital Evidence. 3(2) 1-11.

Mohay, G. (2005, November). Technical challenges and directions for digital forensics. In Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering, 2005. First International Workshop on(pp. 155-161). IEEE.

Nance, K., Hay, B., & Bishop, M. (2009, January). Digital forensics: defining a research agenda. In System Sciences, 2009. HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Nelson, B., Phillips, A., & Steuart, C. (2014). Guide to computer forensics and investigations. Cengage Learning.

Pollitt, M. (2010, January). A history of digital forensics. In IFIP International Conference on Digital Forensics (pp. 3-15). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Reith, M., Carr, C., & Gunsch, G. (2002), “An Examination of Digital Forensic Models”, International Journal of Digital Evidence, Volume 1(Issue 3):6.

Rogers, M. K., & Seigfried, K. (2004). The future of computer forensics: a needs analysis survey. Computers & Security, 23(1), 12-16.

SANS Digital Forensics (2010), https://digital-forensics.sans.org/blog/2010/06/21/computer-forensic-examiners-pi-licensing-requirement-revisited

West Virginia University Forensic Science Initiative. (2007). Technical working group for education and training in digital forensics. US Department of justice



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.