IT Forensics · Courts

Is it possible to prove whether data was deliberately deleted?

Eine gelöschte Datei beantwortet noch nicht die Frage, warum sie nicht mehr vorhanden ist. Dateien können bewusst gelöscht, automatisch bereinigt, durch Synchronisation entfernt, durch Software überschrieben oder bei Systemvorgängen ersetzt worden sein.

Enquire without obligation

Für Gerichte ist daher meist nicht nur die Existenz eines Löschvorgangs interessant, sondern sein Kontext. Lässt sich ein Benutzerbezug herstellen? Gibt es Hinweise auf Papierkorb, Löschbefehle, Dateisystemereignisse, Synchronisation, Systembereinigung oder eine zeitliche Nähe zu anderen relevanten Handlungen?

Unsere Untersuchung trennt drei Ebenen: dass Daten fehlen, dass ein Löschvorgang technisch nachweisbar ist und dass dieser Vorgang einer bestimmten bewussten Handlung zugerechnet werden kann.

The actual question of evidence

Wie wird ein Löschvorgang rekonstruiert?

Mögliche Quellen sind Dateisystemmetadaten, Papierkorbstrukturen, FSEvents oder andere Änderungsprotokolle, Shell- oder Anwendungsspuren, Backups und Snapshots. Bei Mobilgeräten oder Anwendungen können Datenbank- und WAL-Spuren hinzukommen.

Wichtig ist die zeitliche Korrelation. Ein fehlendes Objekt und ein gleichzeitig protokollierter Löschbefehl haben eine andere Aussagekraft als eine Datei, die lediglich nicht mehr gefunden wird.

Where the limits of what can be said lie

Aus dem bloßen Fehlen einer Datei darf nicht automatisch auf vorsätzliche Beweisvernichtung geschlossen werden. Vorsatz ist zudem eine rechtliche beziehungsweise tatsächliche Würdigungsfrage des Gerichts, nicht eine technische Feststellung des Sachverständigen.

Why LanCologne?

In the case of court-ordered investigations, it is not a matter of which analysis programme displays a match first. What matters is whether the question of evidence can be answered on a technical basis and whether that answer stands up to independent scrutiny.

We adopt an open-minded approach, document the origin of key findings and examine alternative technical explanations. The actual analysis is always carried out on a forensic copy or a dataset that has been securely preserved as evidence. Originals are not examined directly unless absolutely necessary. Where live procedures are technically necessary, any changes that may result from them are explicitly documented.

Depending on the research question, key findings are verified either using a second method appropriate to the subject matter or directly on the basis of the underlying raw data. The tools used for this purpose depend on the evidence and the research question. The key factors are the suitability, professional recognition and traceability of the method – not a product name.

Our report distinguishes between factual findings, technical assessments and remaining uncertainties. A negative finding is justified just as carefully as a positive one.

How we handle court-ordered assignments

How we work – from the court order to the response

We first check whether the matter falls within our area of expertise, what facts the court is basing its decision on, and whether the content or scope of the assignment is clear. If there is any doubt, the court will seek clarification. This is in accordance with Sections 404a and 407a of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

Any reasons that might give rise to doubts as to impartiality are examined before the substantive investigation begins and, where appropriate, disclosed to the court.

Devices, data storage media, backups and files provided are identified and documented. The status at the time of the investigation is recorded.

Where technically feasible, a forensic copy or image is created. Hash values and other integrity checks are used to ensure unambiguous identification. The original is retained for future verification.

We determine which evidence would support the alleged event, what contradictory findings are conceivable, and which alternative technical explanations need to be examined.

Only those artefacts which have professional evidential value in relation to the issue in question are examined. Automatic matches are not accepted without verification.

Findings relevant to the decision are – where necessary – cross-checked using a second recognised method, a different technical approach or directly against the raw data.

We explicitly examine what conclusions must not be drawn from the data. We identify missing data, possible deletions, technical limitations, incomplete extracts or contradictory evidence.

The final conclusion is drawn from the documented findings. It is not stated in stronger terms than the data permit.

The main text remains accessible even to those without a background in digital forensics. The technical appendix contains the information required by an independent IT forensic expert to carry out a technical review or prepare a counter-report.

ZPO §§ 403, 404a, 407a und 411; § 286 ZPO. In Strafverfahren §§ 72 ff. StPO.

The expert provides the factual basis for the case. The legal assessment and the final evaluation of the evidence remain the responsibility of the court.

Frequently Asked Questions

LanCologne – IT Forensics for the Courts

Do you require an independent technical investigation into a matter of evidence for court proceedings? LanCologne examines digital evidence objectively, transparently and in a reproducible manner. We document both positive findings and the absence of evidence, as well as technical limitations, in such a way that the conclusions remain comprehensible to the court and verifiable by an independent IT forensic expert.

Get in touch now