• My general feedback is that this report could have been much more substantive. It does a good job of listing “items.” Those items need explanations and examples, from which the reader can learn about executing forensics and the process. I’ve included a few specific examples here.
  • Your methodology section was fine. It listed the significant methods. There could have been much more explanation so that the reader learns a little more about the topics. For example, in your hash/integrity explanation, the reader would want to know how such hashes are generated and why matching hashes uniquely classify integrity. That information is missing but fundamental to the explanation.
  • The same need for a more substantive explanation is in the remaining sections. An example in the tools section is your statement “provide investigators with varying techniques and options to look at digital data. The investigator could leverage the tools differently based on the type of data, device, operating system, and their knowledge.” What are examples of techniques and options for each tool as well as what are some examples of leveraging the tools?

Is this the question you were looking for? Place your Order Here