---
title: "Legal Admissibility of Digital Evidence: Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert Standards"
date: 2026-02-09
canonical: "https://codeandcypher.com/papers/csol590-understanding-digital-evidence/"
author: "Joshua A. Wortz"
institution: "University of San Diego"

report_type: "Academic Research Paper / CSOL590"
doi: "10.5281/zenodo.22287676"
pdf_url: "https://codeandcypher.com/papers/csol590-understanding-digital-evidence.pdf"
description: "Legal admissibility standards for digital evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert criteria, and ISO/IEC 27037 forensic guidelines."
---

# Legal Admissibility of Digital Evidence: Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert Standards

**Author:** Joshua A. Wortz, MSCOL, CISSP ([ORCID: 0009-0003-6722-1019](https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6722-1019))  
**Institution:** University of San Diego  
**Publication Date:** February 9, 2026  
**DOI:** [10.5281/zenodo.22287676](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22287676)  
**PDF Download:** [Full Research Paper PDF](https://codeandcypher.com/papers/csol590-understanding-digital-evidence.pdf)  

---

## Abstract

Digital evidence is defined as any data of investigative value that is stored or transmitted in binary form. Recognizing its importance helps forensic analysts feel assured in the reliability of their work when reconstructing the 'cyber-attack lifecycle.' This evidence is essential for attribution, scope assessment, and timeline reconstruction (Skulkin, 2022).

---

## Research Paper Body

Part 1: Research
Definition and Importance of Digital Evidence
Digital evidence is defined as any data of investigative value that is stored or transmitted 
in binary form. Recognizing its importance helps forensic analysts feel assured in the reliability 
of their work when reconstructing the 'cyber-attack lifecycle.' This evidence is essential for 
attribution, scope assessment, and timeline reconstruction (Skulkin, 2022).
Phases of a Ransomware Attack
Modern ransomware attacks are complex, multi-stage operations that often focus on post-
exploitation activities rather than immediate encryption. The core phases include initial access, 
privilege escalation, reconnaissance, credential harvesting, lateral movement, data exfiltration, 
and finally, ransomware deployment, each critical for understanding the attack progression 
(Skulkin, 2022). 
1. Initial Access: The adversary gains a foothold via phishing, software vulnerabilities, or 
compromised RDP credentials.
2. Post-Exploitation: Privilege Escalation: Elevating rights to Admin or SYSTEM level to 
access protected areas.
○ Reconnaissance: Scanning the network and Active Directory using tools like 
AdFind to map assets.
○ Credential Access: Harvesting password hashes and Kerberos tickets from 
LSASS memory.
3. Lateral Movement: Navigating through the network using legitimate protocols like 
SMB or RDP.

4. Data Exfiltration: Moving sensitive data to an attacker-controlled server, often referred 
to as "double-extortion."
5. Ransomware Deployment: The final encryption of files and presentation of the ransom 
note.
Common Types of Digital Evidence
Investigators find digital evidence in both volatile and persistent storage locations. These 
include memory artifacts such as NTLM hashes and Kerberos tickets, file system metadata such 
as Master File Table ($MFT) timestamps, and registry hives such as Amcache and Shimcache. 
Furthermore, investigators also source digital evidence from relevant log files, specifically 
Windows Event IDs 4688 and 4624 (NCyTE, 2026).
● Log Files: Critical records include Windows Event IDs 4688 (Process Creation) and 4624 
(Logon Events).
● Registry Hives: Files such as the Amcache track program execution details, while the 
Shimcache stores metadata about executable files to improve compatibility (NCyTE, 
2026).
● Memory Artifacts: RAM contains volatile data like NTLM hashes, Kerberos tickets, and 
active network connections.
● Filesystem Metadata: The Master File Table ($MFT) provides timestamps (MACB) for 
file creation and modification.
Principles of Handling and Preserving Digital Evidence
Maintaining the integrity of evidence is critical for legal and corporate admissibility.

● Volatility Management: Responders must prioritize collecting data in RAM, as 
memory-resident malware is lost upon system reboot (Plunkett, 2026).
● Integrity Protection: Hashing (MD5, SHA256) ensures that the evidence remains 
unchanged. Hardware write blockers are used during imaging to prevent any data from 
being written back to the source (Plunkett, 2026).
● Chain of Custody: A chronological record must be maintained, documenting who held 
the evidence and for what purpose to prevent tampering.
Part 2: Case Study Analysis
Incident Summary: Sandworm Team (Ukraine Power Grid)
In 2016, the Russian-linked Sandworm Team conducted a high-profile attack on the 
Ukrainian power grid. This case illustrates the complex forensic challenges professionals face 
when analyzing lateral movement and credential compromise in real-world cyberattacks, thereby 
fostering respect for their expertise.
Digital Evidence Involved
Several types of evidence were crucial in analyzing the Sandworm incident:
● Credential Dumping Artifacts: Forensics identified the use of Mimikatz to dump 
LSASS process memory. Even if the tool was deleted, traces remained in the 
Amcache.hve registry hive.
● Active Directory Databases: Attackers used the Windows utility ntdsutil.exe to create 
backups of the ntds database. This file contains all domain hashes.
● PowerShell Console History: This revealed how the group used fileless techniques to 
load malicious scripts directly into memory.

Challenges in Handling and Comparing Evidence
The Sandworm case highlights significant forensic challenges:
1. Contextual Noise: The use of "Living off the Land" Binaries (LoLBins), such as 
ntdsutil.exe, made it difficult to distinguish legitimate system maintenance from 
malicious activity.
2. Invisibility of Memory Attacks: Since many tools were loaded reflectively via 
PowerShell, traditional disk-based scans found no malicious executables.
3. Timestomping: The attackers manipulated MACB timestamps to hide their activity 
within the filesystem, requiring analysts to cross-reference multiple artifacts (such as the 
$MFT and the Registry) to identify discrepancies.

### References
Skulkin, O. (2022). Incident Response Techniques for Ransomware Attacks. Packt Publishing. 
https://usd.vitalsource.com/books/9781803233994
Google. (2026). Gemeini (Gemini 3 Flash) [LLM]. https://gemini.google.com/
National Cybersecurity Training & Education Center (NCyTE). (2026). Module 5 (M5) glossary 
terms.
Plunkett, T. (2026). Presentation 5.1: Computer forensics tools [Transcript]. University of San 
Diego.


---

> **Archival Artifact:** The complete, formatted research publication can be accessed directly as a PDF at [https://codeandcypher.com/papers/csol590-understanding-digital-evidence.pdf](https://codeandcypher.com/papers/csol590-understanding-digital-evidence.pdf).


---

## Citation (APA 7th Edition)
Wortz, J. A. (2026). *Legal Admissibility of Digital Evidence: Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert Standards*. Code and Cypher. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22287676
