IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i5p774-d356846.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Game Theoretic Approach for Digital Forensic Tool Selection †

Author

Listed:
  • Umit Karabiyik

    (Department of Computer and Information Technology, Purdue University, 01 N. Grant St. West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Tugba Karabiyik

    (Polytechnic Institute, Purdue University, 01 N. Grant St. West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Digital forensic investigations are getting harder and more time consuming everyday because of various problems including rapid advances in technology, wide variety of available devices in investigations, and large amount of data to be analyzed. In order to tackle with these issues, digital forensic tools are developed by open-source communities and software companies. These software products are released as a complete toolkit or standalone tools targeting specific tasks. In either case, digital forensic investigators use these tools based on their familiarity because of previous training experiences, available funding from their agencies/businesses, tool’s ease of use, etc. Moreover, using additional tools to verify the findings is a common practice in digital forensic investigations. This is particularly common when the previously selected tools do not generate an expected output. In this paper, we propose a game theoretic approach to the tool selection problem in order to help investigators to make a decision on which digital forensic tool to use. We particularly focused on file carving tool usage when building and analyzing our model because of the available data on these tools. Our results show how important it is to investigate the dynamics of strategy changes between the tools during an investigation to increase the efficiency of the investigation using game theoretic modeling.

Suggested Citation

  • Umit Karabiyik & Tugba Karabiyik, 2020. "A Game Theoretic Approach for Digital Forensic Tool Selection †," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:5:p:774-:d:356846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/5/774/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/5/774/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    2. Zare Moayedi, Behzad & Azgomi, Mohammad Abdollahi, 2012. "A game theoretic framework for evaluation of the impacts of hackers diversity on security measures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 45-54.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    2. M. Hinojosa & A. Mármol & J. Zarzuelo, 2008. "Inequality averse multi-utilitarian bargaining solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(4), pages 597-618, December.
    3. Matsui, Kenji, 2020. "Optimal bargaining timing of a wholesale price for a manufacturer with a retailer in a dual-channel supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 225-236.
    4. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. H Peyton Young, 2014. "The Evolution of Social Norms," Economics Series Working Papers 726, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Erkki Koskela & Ronnie Schöb, 2002. "Alleviating Unemployment: The Case for Green Tax Reforms," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 20, pages 355-378, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2009. "Splitting up value: A critical review of residual income theories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(1), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Stefano Vannucci, 2015. "La teoria dei giochi e John Nash," Department of Economics University of Siena 722, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    9. Roland Kirstein & Matthias Peiss, 2013. "Quantitative Machtkonzepte in der Ökonomik," FEMM Working Papers 130004, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    10. Michael Carter & Julian Wright, 1999. "Interconnection in Network Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, February.
    11. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    12. Thomas M. Humphrey, 1996. "The early history of the box diagram," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Win, pages 37-75.
    13. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    14. Izat B. Baybusinov & Enrico Maria Fenoaltea & Yi-Cheng Zhang, 2022. "Negotiation problem," Papers 2201.12619, arXiv.org.
    15. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    16. Yoshihara, Naoki, 2003. "Characterizations of bargaining solutions in production economies with unequal skills," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 256-285, February.
    17. Yan, Ruiliang & Wang, John & Zhou, Bin, 2010. "Channel integration and profit sharing in the dynamics of multi-channel firms," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 430-440.
    18. S. S. Askar & A. Al-khedhairi, 2019. "Analysis of a Four-Firm Competition Based on a Generalized Bounded Rationality and Different Mechanisms," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-12, May.
    19. Marc Fleurbaey, 2000. "Choix social : une difficulté et de multiples possibilités," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 51(5), pages 1215-1232.
    20. Juarez, Ruben & Ko, Chiu Yu & Xue, Jingyi, 2018. "Sharing sequential values in a network," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 734-779.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:5:p:774-:d:356846. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.